Full text of "History Of Speech Education In America Background Studies"

See other formats

History of speech education in

371*914 W19h 55-07958
Wallace $7,50

History of speech education in
America •

kansas city public library

••»* Kansas city, missouri

Books will be issued only

on presentation of library card.
Please report lost cards and

change of residence promptly.
Card holders are responsible for

all books, records, films, pictures
or other library materials
checked out on their cards.

'flif f »- <-•

SOUTHEAST
NOV2V565I

OCT 15 1964 ',

MAR 2 2 1966

. /I

APR2719S

HISTORY OF

SPEECH EDUCATION

IN AMERICA

History of

Speech Education in America

BACKGROUND STUDIES

PREPARED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE

Speech Association of America

KARL E. WALLACE, Editor

WARREN GUTHRIE

FREDERICK W. HABERMAN HAROLD WESTLAKE
BARNARD HEWITT CLAUDE M. WISE

Editorial Board

New York
APPLETON-CENTURY-CROFTS, INC.

AU rights reserved. This book, or parts
thereof, must not be reproduced in any
form without permission of the publishers.

584-1

Library of Congress Card Number:
54-6203

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OP AMERICA

PREFACE

This volume of studies was undertaken early in 1948 with the official
sanction of the Speech Association of America. Since the early 1930's,
the Association's Committee on the History of Speech Education, under
the leadership of Giles Gray, A. M. Drummond, and Bert Emsley,
helped to secure the interest of scholars and teachers in the history and
tradition of the field of Speech as it has unfolded in the United States.
Committee members themselves engaged in historical studies, and
some of their own labors are represented in this volume. They cajoled
an occasional graduate student into unearthing materials and preparing
theses that helped to reveal the foundations of old meaning and to
beget new vigor for modern precept and practice. By mid-1947 the
Committee— and many other persons concerned with the backgrounds
of pedagogy— believed that the time had come for a joint, systematic
project of considerable magnitude. The early studies had not only
provided valuable information about the teaching of Speech in
America; they pointed to bibliographic resources and suggested many
directions of profitable research. In December, 1947? upon recom-
mendation of the Committee, the Association authorized this volume
of papers and selected the Editorial Board.

For six years this book has been in preparation. Aided by the Com-
mittee, the Board set up a chronological list of topics. The list gave
some system to the project and the topics are reflected, for the most
part, in the chapter headings. Readers, however, should not regard the
chronological progression as an attempt to write definitive history. Be-
fore a "final" history of speech education can be prepared, we need the
work of many future scholars who will furnish the facts as to who
taught what, and where, and how. We believe, nevertheless, that the
studies included here supply significant information and afford inter-
pretations which must be reckoned with by future historians of the
subject. They organize much that has already been done; they offer
much that is new.

The scope of the studies covers American speech education from
Colonial times to about 1925. But because most of the streams in

VI PREFACE

American education have their tributaries in English and classical
sources, three articles focus on the springs and currents which flowed
long before New England and Virginia schools and colleges were
established.

The main current bears the formal label of Rhetoric, the art of verbal
communication. We are mainly concerned in this book, not with writ-
ing, but with speaking—with the use of speech in socially significant
situations and the attempts to teach the art of oral communication in a
formal educational environment. Rhetoric so conceived gave rise to a
number of branches of study. It gave impetus to the study of style and
speech composition, to the study of elocution and delivery, to the
analysis of speech sounds, and to phonetics and pronunciation. It gave
considerable impetus, also, to the art of composition and delivery in
the theatre. If these may be thought of as the chief branches of rhetoric,
it seems clear that the branches divide and subdivide, gathering
strength in studies other than rhetoric, until they establish their own
currents which we designate today by such terms as speech correction
and pathology, oral interpretation, educational dramatics, and the arts
of mass communication— radio and television.

About all of these branches, except radio and television, this book
has something to say. In other words, it focuses upon systematic educa-
tion in speech as it has been manifested in the college and the school.

The terminal date, 1925, has not emerged inviolate. In some ways it
provided a logical stopping point, for by the 1920's the basic lines of
speech instruction had been recognized academically, at least in the
American college. The study of phonetics and speech correction, both
in course and in clinic, had taken root; dramatics had found its niche;
oral interpretation had its ally in literature; public speaking and dis-
cussion had been taught effectively outside of the traditional courses in
English composition; undergraduate and graduate majors in speech
had been formally established. By and large, what has happened since
the 1920's in the field of Speech reflects the influence of increasing
specialization and the application of basic knowledges and skills to
meet professional requirements in a professionally minded society. An
account of such developments, especially in education for radio and
television, will have to be told later. The reader will discover, further-
more, that in a few instances, chiefly in the article dealing with inter-
collegiate debating and in the chapters treating of the professional
societies, which did much to foster speech education, the significant
story had to include certain events in the 1930's and the 1940V The
character of the American Educational Theatre Association, for ex-
ample, did not emerge clearly until the last decade.

The Editorial Board fully acknowledges the fine co-operation of the

PREFACE Vll

contributors. Many of them are recognized as authorities in their lines
of study. They were asked to take a fresh look at their materials, to
extend their research, and to prepare new studies. This they gladly did.
A few of the authors were asked to undertake what to them were new
lines of investigation. They, too, responded superbly. The results, we
feel, are worth the close observation and critical analysis which both
mature scholars and graduate students in Speech can exercise.

We are grateful to our publishers and their editorial assistants whose
faith in this venture is as great as ours. The Speech Association of
America stands in heavy debt to members of the Editorial Board, par-
ticularly Professor Hewitt, whose labors were often beyond routine
endeavor. To Professor Haberman goes deep appreciation for the
preparation of the index. And to the contributors, I express my per-
sonal respect and admiration. Many of them have graciously borne our
editorial suggestions, requests, revisions, liberties, and idiosyncrasies.
Such credit as this work may deserve belongs entirely to them. I alone
must bear its shortcomings.

KARL R. WALLACE

CONTENTS

PREFACE ........ . v

PART I

THE HERITAGE

CHAPTER

1. English Backgrounds of Rhetoric WILBUR SAMUEL HOWELL 1

2. Rhetorical Theory in Colonial America WARREN GUTHRIE 48

3. Rhetorical Practice in Colonial America GEORGE v. BOHMAN 60

4. English Sources of Rhetorical Theory in Nineteenth-Century

America . ... CLARENCE w. EDNEY 80

5. English Sources of American Elocution . 105

FREDERICK W. HABERMAN

PART II

RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

6. American Contributions to Rhetorical Theory and Homiletics 129

JOHN P. HOSHOR

7. Rhetorical and Elocutionary Training in Nineteenth-Century

Colleges . . MARIE HOCHMUTH AND RICHARD MURPHY 153

8. The Elocutionary Movement and Its Chief Figures . 178

MARY MARGARET ROBB

9. Steele MacKaye and the Delsartian Tradition . 202

CLAUDE L. SHAVER

jyp Dr. James Rush , . LESTER L. HALE 219

11. The Literary Society . . DAVID POTTER 238

12. Intercollegiate Debating .... 259

L. LEROY COWPERTHWAITE AND A. CRAIG BAIRD

X CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

IS. Speech Education in Nineteenth-Century Schools . 277

GLADYS L. BORCHERS AND LILLIAN R. WAGNER

14. Five Private Schools of Speech . EDYTH RENSHAW 301

15. Phonetics and Pronunciation 326

BERT EMSLEY, CHARLES K. THOMAS, AND CLAUDE SIFRITT

16. The Rise of Experimental Phonetics JAMES F. CURTIS 348

17. Some Symbolic Systems for Teaching the Deaf 370

C. V. IIUDGINS

18. Development of Education in Speech and Hearing to 1920 . 389

CLARENCE T. SIMON

19. Some Teachers and the Transition to Twentieth-Century

Speech Education . . GILES WILKESON GRAY 422

20. Origin and Development of Departments of Speech . . 447

DONALD K. SMITH

21. Speech Education in Twentieth-Century Public Schools 471

HALBERT E. GULLEY AND HUGH SEABURY

22. National Speech Organizations and Speech Education . , 490

FRANK M. RARIG AND HALBERT S, GREAVES

PART III

THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

23. Educational Dramatics in Nineteenth-Century Colleges 523

JOHN L, CLARK

24. The Private Theatre Schools in the Late Nineteenth Century 552

FRANCIS HODGE

25. College and University Theatre Instruction in the Early

Twentieth Century . . CLIFFORD EUGENE HAMAR 572

26. Dramatics in the High Schools, 1900-1925 . PAUL KOZELKA 595

27. Professional Theatre Schools in the Early Twentieth Century 617

FRE1> C. BLANCH AUD

28. National Theatre Organizations and Theatre Education , 641

WILLIAM P. HALSTEAD AND CLABA BEHRINCER
INDEX . 675

PART I
The Heritage

JL English Backgrounds of Rhetoric

WILBUR SAMUEL HOWELL

The present volume aims to describe America's experience in edu-
cating citizens for the duties of oral communication. This experience is
part of the history of education in the new world; it is also a com-
mentary upon our cultural and political history in every period of our
development from colonial community to continental nation. Several
articles in the ensuing pages will examine the various theories that have
guided American educators in preparing students to speak in public.
Still other articles will discuss that strange phenomenon, the "elocu-
tionary" movement in Britain and America during the nineteenth
century. Still other articles will explore American contributions to
phonetics and lexicography; American experiments with theatre arts
as an academic study; American interest in intercollegiate debating;
and American regard for the college literary and forensic society as the
nurse of future statesmen, educators, lawyers, preachers. The reader
of these pages will encounter names already well known to him: John
Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence, who was
professor of rhetorical studies in eighteenth-century Princeton, and who
lectured on eloquence to James Madison and a generation that was to
give us our present nation; John Quincy Adams, sixth president of the
United States, who as first Boylston Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory
at Harvard brought to his students a gifted revaluation of the rhetorical
teachings of Cicero and Quintilian; Woodrow Wilson, who coached
debating teams at Princeton during his career as professor of politics.
There are other famous names in these pages, Noah Webster and
Henry Ward Beecher, for example, not to mention men and women
prominent as public readers, lecturers, actors, and teachers of dra-
matics. These and many others will receive attention here, as their
part in the development of rhetorical education in America is noticed.

My purpose in this first essay of the present volume is to describe

6 THE HERITAGE

show his enduring regard for eloquence as the product of these five
faculties:

Well then, ... to praise eloquence, to set forth its power and the honours
which it brings to those who have it, is not my present purpose, nor is it nec-
essary. However, this one thing I venture to affirm without fear of contradic-
tion, that whether it is a product of rules and theory, or a technique depend-
ent on practice, or on natural gifts, it is one attainment amongst all others of
unique difficulty. For of the five elements of which, as we say, it is made up,
each one is in its own right a great art. One may guess therefore what power
is inherent in an art made up of five great arts, and what difficulty it presents.4

An art made up of five great arts— this is the Ciceronian thesis about
rhetoric. The most thorough commentary in classical Roman times upon
these five arts, as treated by Cicero and many lesser writers, is Quin-
tilian's Institutio Oratoria, a work of great scholarship and genuine
human interest. These five arts in Cicero and Quintilian have an
elaborate subject matter, which cannot at this time be explained. Some
of this subject matter will become apparent as my discussion proceeds.
Most of it will have to be treated here in round terms, if space is to be
conserved for the main topics of this essay. It may for the moment be
sufficient to say that the first of these terms, Invention, stands for the
processes of analysis by which the speaker finds material for his
speeches, whereas the second term, Arrangement, means the processes
of synthesis or combination by which material is put into order for
presentation. The other terms, Style, Memory, and Delivery, have a
more obvious application to the speaker's total problem, and they need
not be made the subject of special explanation now.

Many English rhetorics in the period of my present discussion recog-
nize these five terms of Ciceronian rhetoric as the major heads of the
theory of communication. Other English rhetorics recognize three or
four of these terms. Whenever these terms or a majority of them are
mentioned by Englishmen as the basic concepts of rhetorical theory,
and are then treated in such a way as to stress the priority of Invention
above the others, the rhetoric thus created becomes Ciceronian in the
present sense in which I am using the word.

This Ciceronian pattern of English rhetoric begins historically with
Alcuin, the first Englishman to compose a rhetorical work with Cicero's
five procedures explicitly enumerated and discussed in the traditional
way. Alcuin was born in the year 735, the date of Bede's death, and he
was educated in England under scholars who had known and admired
Bede. The fame of the new English learning, to which Bede had greatly
contributed, was recognized throughout Europe during the eighth cen-
tury; so recognized, indeed, that Alcuin was invited at length to France

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 7

by Charlemagne, and there given the task of establishing a system of
education for the emerging French nation. Alcuin's De Rhetorica, com-
posed in Latin in the year 794 as a dialogue between himself and his
royal patron, is one of the works he produced in carrying out his educa-
tional mission; 5 another is his De Dialectica, the first work by an Eng-
lishman on that subject.

Alcuin's De Rhetorica devotes most of its space to Invention, which
Cicero had considered to be of overwhelming importance to oratory.
Ciceronian Invention, as I suggested above, is the process by which a
speaker analyzes his subject and thus determines the subject matter of his
speech. This process involves several steps. One step consists in decid-
ing whether the prospective speech is to be Ceremonial, Deliberative, or
Forensic; this decision teaches the speaker whether to emphasize honor,
expediency, or justice in his speech, and once he knows which of these
to emphasize, he has some of the subject matter he needs. Another step
consists in placing his prospective subject within one of the nine pos-
tures or positions that controversies occupy, to the end that he may use
the lines of argument naturally available in that particular position.
These nine positions cannot here be explained; but they involve the
Latin concept of constitutio or status, and are in rhetorical theory
equivalent to the concept of topics or places in dialectical theory as ex-
pounded in Cicero's Topics and Aristotle's similar work.6 The third step
in the process of devising subject matter for a speech consists in think-
ing of possible materials to be used in getting attention during the Intro-
duction, and of possible materials to be used in each one of the other
five standard parts of the classical oration. Now these three steps involve
the largest part of Cicero's theory of rhetorical Invention; and Alcuin's
De Rhetorica covers the subject of Invention in the same terms.

Alcuin gives almost no space to Arrangement, the second of the con-
ventional topics, thanks to the fact that in Ciceronian theory Invention
covers part of Arrangement by dealing with the six standard parts of
the oration, and Style covers another part by dealing with the ordering
of words in sentences. As for Style, Alcuin speaks of it in such fashion
as to indicate only a fraction of that part of Ciceronian theory, but,
even so, Style ranks next after Invention in the amount of space he
devotes to it. He gives none of the lore of Memory as set forth in such
works as the Rhetorica ad Herennium; he merely quotes Cicero's defini-
tion of it as given in De Oratore, and warns that it is improved by exer-
cise and harmed by drunkenness. To Delivery, the fifth part of the
Ciceronian system, Alcuin devotes about half as much space as he had
given to Style. Thereafter he ends the dialogue by speaking briefly of
the four cardinal virtues in relation to the Christian concept of love.

Alcuin's De Rhetorica is not merely a treatise based upon Cicero. It

8 THE HERITAGE

is rather an abridged edition of De Inventions, so far as its treatment of
the first part of rhetoric is concerned; and a mosaic of phrases from De
Oratore and Orator, so far as the other parts are concerned. These
phrases from the two latter works probably came to Alcuin from Julius
Victor, a rhetorician of the fourth century A. r»., whose Ars Rhetorica
bases itself more broadly in Ciceronian theory than does Alcuin s Da
Rhetorical Despite his unwillingness to venture away from his sources,
Alcuin deserves credit for his skilful summary of the important parts
of the ancient scheme. His De Khetorica is an attractive little work,
quite apart from the interest it holds as the first statement by an Eng-
lishman of the five procedures of Cicero's theory of communication.

"With the death of Alcuin," remarks Atkins, "the tradition of learn-
ing in England underwent a prolonged eclipse." B This observation
applies with particular force to Ciceronian rhetoric, for it was several
centuries after Alcuin that interest in the five procedures began to
reassert itself. In fact, this interest does not seem to reappear among
English writers until the early thirteenth century, when Geoffrey of
Vinsauf used Cicero's terms as the basis of his Poetrw Nova.0 We shall
have occasion later to examine Geoffrey's use of these terms in poetical
theory when we discuss Stephen Hawes' The Pastime of Pleasure, a
poetical work of the early sixteenth century, which also treats the art of
poetry as a manifestation of Ciceronian rhetoric. Hawes is the first
Englishman to make his own language deliver Cicero's five terms. This
fact may remind us of the acceptance of English in the fourteenth cen-
tury as the official medium of instruction in Britain 10-a development
which hastened the rise of vernacular learning.

Before we reach the sixteenth century and the complete vernaculari-
zation of Ciceronian rhetoric, a Latin work in Cicero's idiom should be
mentioned as part of the history of rhetoric in England, even though its
author was an Italian. This work, usually called the $[ova Rhetorica, has
the distinction of being the first work on ^rhetoric ever to be printed in
England. It appeared at Caxton s~"press in "Westmin^ter-dbotrt 1479;
another edition dated 1480 bears the imprint of St. Albans, and is
regarded as no doubt the first book to be printed at that press by
Caxton's contemporary, "the Schoolmaster Printer."11

The Nova Rhetorica is the work of Lorenzo Guglielmo Traversagni
Traversagni was descended from a wealthy and noble family in Savona,
Italy, and became a member of the Franciscan order in that town at the
age of twenty. He received instruction and the title of doctor from his
teachers at the monastery, one of whom was Francesco dalla Rovere,
later Pope Sixtus IV. His active years were spent as a traveling scholar:
he studied logic, philosophy, theology, and canon law at Padua and
Bologna; he later lectured on theology at Cambridge, Paris, and Tou-

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 9

louse. It was during his sojourn at Cambridge that he composed his
Nova Rhetorica; in fact, he tells us at the conclusion of that work of his
having finished it July 6, 1478, at Cambridge. At that time he was fifty-
six years of age. His teaching career in foreign parts ended at Toulouse
when he was seventy. Thereafter he lived at the Franciscan monastery
in his native Savona, where he spent his last years writing, teaching,
collecting books, and bestowing benefactions upon his cloister. He died
March 5, 1503, at the age of eighty-one, leaving behind many works in
manuscript, and one published work, the Nova Rhetorical

The Nova Rhetorica is thoroughly Ciceronian in the sense in which
that term is here being used. It contains an introduction and three books
of doctrine. The introduction recalls the benefit, the splendor, and the
glory conferred in past time upon wise men and great commonwealths
by copiousness in speaking. The following books treat the five topics of
Cicero's rhetoric, In Book I Invention is discussed as it pertains to the
conventional six parts of the Forensic oration; and in the first pages of
Book II, as it pertains to Deliberative and Ceremonial speaking. The
topic of Arrangement occupies the closing pages of Book II. The final
book is devoted mainly to Style, although Memory and Delivery are
each given more than a merely perfunctory recognition. A student of
English rhetoric describes the Nova Rhetorica as "scholastic in tone,
with frequent reference to the fathers of the Church, as St. Bernard, St.
Anselm, St. Basil, Beda, etc."13 This remark applies particularly to
Traversagnfs analysis of Style, where by mentioning the fathers and
by making frequent quotations from the Bible, he indicates the special
applicability of pagan rhetoric to preaching.

Traversagni uses the terms of Ciceronian rhetoric in Cicero's native
language, as Alcuin had done. Six years after Traversagnfs death, those
terms spoke English for the first time. As I mentioned before, the
responsible agent in this development was Stephen Hawes* Pastime of
Pleasure, an attractive allegory of learning written in verse and pub-
lished in 1509.14 The Pastime is modeled upon an earlier verse allegory
in English, The Court of Sapience, which Hawes himself believed to be
the work of Lydgate,15 and which had been published by Caxton
around 1481. There are two interesting differences between the treat-
ment of rhetoric in the Court and in the Pastime, despite the influence
of the former upon the latter. The Court devotes only six seven-line
stanzas to rhetoric, whereas the Pastime devotes to that subject ninety-
two seven-line stanzas; and the Court discusses rhetoric in stylistic
terms, referring the reader meanwhile to Balbus de Janua's Catholicon
and Geoffrey of Vinsauf s Poetria Nova for further information, where-
as the Pastime discusses rhetoric in terms of the five procedures of the
Ciceronian tradition, and uses the Poetria Nova for material relating to

10 THE HERITAGE

those terms. Thus the Court; stands as the earliest English version of the
philosophy behind stylistic rhetoric, and will be referred to again when
I discuss that pattern. The Pastime, however, can claim to be the earliest
version in English of the basic pattern which Alcuin and Traversagni
had followed.

The Pastime, which runs to 5816 lines of verse arranged into forty-six
chapters or cantos, tells the story of the poet, La Graunde Arnoure, in
quest of a beautiful lady, La Bell Pucell. The quest requires the poet to
visit the Tower of Doctrine and the Tower of Chivalry on his way to
the Tower Perilous, where dwells the lady. In the Tower of Doctrine he
receives essential preparation for his quest in the form of instruction
in the seven liberal arts, third of which is rhetoric. Lady "Rethoryke"
instructs the poet in her art and with dramatic propriety gives him the
sort of instruction that more befits the poet than the orator. Neverthe-
less, she explains her subject as if Cicero were outlining the steps in
oratorical composition.16

First she speaks of "inuencyon." This she describes as the product of
five faculties: common wit, imagination, fantasy, judgment, memory.
Her description of these faculties does not depend upon anything from
the accepted explanation of rhetorical Invention as set forth, for
example, by Alcuin; for she is bent upon making rhetorical theory help
in the composition of poetry as well as prose, or of poetry more than
prose. Still, she keeps the name of rhetoric, and she sets forth the first
division of her subject under the term sanctioned by Cicero.

The second division of her subject she calls "dysposycyon." Here she
speaks of ways to organize narrative and argumentative compositions.
Narratio is a standard part of the classical oration described in Cicero-
nian rhetoric, and the theory of narratio in oratory is applicable to poetry.
Thus Lady "Rethoryke" is not outside Ciceronian rhetoric on this topic,
although her emphasis is not upon oratory.

Her third topic is "elocucyon." She begins this as if she were going to
enumerate and discuss the schemes and tropes of oratorical style; but
she soon deserts this line of procedure and speaks instead of the theory
of interpreting fables and figures so as to perceive the essential truth
conveyed in them. Thus Style becomes for her the art of interpreting
poetic fictions, not the art of clothing in language the arguments and
persuasions of oratory.

"Pronuncyacyon," her next topic, is interesting as perhaps the first
theory of oral reading or oral interpretation in the English language.
She is thinking of the poet reciting his poems, not of the orator deliver-
ing a speech, and she proceeds accordingly.

Her final topic is "memoratyf e." The theory of memory, as set forth in
the Rhetorica ad Herennium and usually mentioned and discussed in

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 11

other works of the Ciceronian rhetorical tradition, involved the notion
that the speaker could remember his speech by associating its ideas with
a system of images of his own choosing, and by visualizing those images
as arranged in a system of localities or places familiar to himself. Lady
"Rethoryke" explains this ancient theory by suggesting that the "ora-
ture" associate the tales he wants to remember with appropriate images,
and envisage those images as arranged within his leathern wallet. Her
words are:

Yf to the orature many a sundry tale
One after other treatably be tolde
Than sundry ymages in his closed male
Eche for a mater he doth than well holde
Lyke to the tale he doth than so beholde
And inwarde a recapytulacyon
Of eche ymage the moralyzacyon. . . ,17

So does Lady "Rethoryke" combine the terms of Ciceronian rhetoric
with the requirements of a poet's profession, as Geoffrey of Vinsauf had
no doubt taught her to do by the Poetria Nova, and as the Rhetorica ad
Herennium had in turn taught Geoffrey to do, when he decided to
analyze the problem of poetic communication.

In his pioneering essay on sixteenth-century English rhetorics prefixed
to his edition of Leonard Cox's The Arte or Crafte of Rhethoryke, Fred-
eric Ives Carpenter implies that Caxton's translation of the Mirrour of
the World is perhaps the first printed account of Cicero's five terms to
appear in English.18 The Mirrour appeared first around 1481, and in a
second edition around 1490. If either of these editions had contained a
discussion of rhetoric in Cicero's five terms, Carpenter's implication
would be perfectly justified. But the discussion of rhetoric in the two
fifteenth-century editions of the Mirrour amounts only to fifteen lines
in Oliver H. Prior's reprint of those works/9 and those lines are devoted
to general comments on the relation between rhetoric and the moral
and political sciences. It is in the third edition of the Mirrour that the
account of rhetoric is expanded to include brief passages on "inuen-
cion," "disposicion," and "eloquens," followed by some few comments
on Memory and Delivery. These are the passages noticed by Carpenter;
but they appeared first in print around 1527, and by that time Hawes'
Pastime had been issued in its second edition. Caxton's Mirrour must
be relegated to second place in numbering the appearances of Cicero-
nian rhetoric in English versions.

In third place belongs Leonard Cox's The Arte or Crafte of Rhe-
thoryke, although in a sense it is first, for it is the earliest rhetorical
schoolbook published in English, and it is the earliest systematic
attempt to acquaint English readers with the original rhetorical con-

12 THE HERITAGE

tent of the Ciceronian concept of Invention. Cox's Rhethoryke ap-
peared in its first edition in London around 1529, and in its second
edition at the same place in 1532.

At that time. Cox was a schoolmaster at Reading. As he himself
informs us, he had been thinking long and hard on a way to occupy
himself in the service of his patron, the Abbot Hugh Faringdon. He
finally had decided, he says, that it would be best for young students if
he wrote "some proper worke of the ryght pleasaunt and parsuadyble
arte of Rhetoryke." 20 He envisaged rhetoric, he goes on, as "very nec-
essary to all suche as wyll eyther be aduocates and proctoures in the
lawe, or els apte to be sente in theyr prynces Ambassades or to be techars
of goddes worde in suche maner as maye be moste sensible and accepte
to their audience: And finally to all them that haue any thynge to
prepose or to speke afore any company e, what someuer they be." ~l He
believed, he adds, that there was "no scyence that is les taught." 22
Then he proceeds to remark upon the faults in a society unschooled in
rhetoric.

In brief, Cox finds three such faults. First is rude utterance, which,
when prevalent in legal speaking, impairs the client's cause. Second is
inept disposition in sermons; this has the effect of confounding the
hearer's memory. Great tediousness in discourse is third. Cox implies
that this is very common, and that it arises from the speaker's lack of
invention, order, and proper style. He adds that it ends in driving
hearers away or putting them to sleep.

The remedy for these shortcomings, Cox implies, can be provided by
proper instruction in rhetoric. His treatise, which, as he declares, is
"partely traunslatyd out of a werke of Rhethoryke wrytten in the lattyn
tongue, and partely compyled of myne owne," 23 provides that instruc-
tion. Incidentally, one Latin source acknowledged by Cox himself in his
treatise is Cicero's De Inuentione.2* But, as Carpenter was the first
to point out, Cox's real source is the Institutiones Rhetoricae of
Melanchthon,25

Melanchthon's Institutiones Rhetoricae partitions rhetoric under the
topics of Invention, Judgment, Disposition, and Style.26 Now the second
of these terms seems out of place in a treatise on Ciceronian rhetoric as
I have been describing it. Ii^ actual fact, however, the term is not so
much out of place as unnecessary. It appears to have come to Melanch-
thon from dialectical theory. In dialectical theory, as standardized by
Cicero's Topics from Aristotle's similar work, there are two main topics,
Invention and Judgment,27 roughly parallel in intent to the first two
procedures of Ciceronian rhetoric. It is never surprising when pieces
of the machinery of dialectical invention and judgment turn up in
treatises on rhetoric by disciples of Cicero. In fact, we shall observe later

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 13

that pieces of the machinery of dialectical invention appear in Thomas
Wilson's Arte of Rhetorique. Melanchthon's use of the word Judgment
as a main process in rhetoric seems to be merely an illustration that a
piece of the machinery of dialectical disposition has turned up where
it does not belong if the concept of arrangement is meanwhile being
recognized.

Cox defines rhetoric as having the four procedures enumerated by
Melanchthon.28 He limits himself to Invention, however, commenting
both at the beginning and end of his work that Invention is the hard-
est of the four to master.29 He takes the trouble to point out, moreover,
that in thus limiting himself he has "folowed the facion of Tully who
made a seuerall werke of inuencion." 30 Actually, of course, he treats
Invention by speaking of it as in part the process of finding material
for the divisions of the oration, with the result that his treatise, like
Cicero's, covers Arrangement as well as Invention, despite its seeming
limitation to the latter topic.

Cox mentions in a letter dated May 23, 1540, that he is planning a
work on rhetoric to be called the Erotemata Rhetorical1 Possibly that
would have been more complete than his Rhethoryke; possibly also it
would have been a further translation from Melanchthon, since Cox's
projected title suggests his desire to identify his work with the latter,
who had entitled one of his works the Erotemata Dialeatices. But Cox's
second work on rhetoric appears never to have been published.

Next after Cox's Rhethoryke in the sequence of English versions of
Ciceronian theory is Thomas Wilson's The Arte of Rhetorique, the
greatest work in this tradition by an Englishman. Wilson produces a
systematic, learned, and lively account of each of the five procedures of
Cicero's theory of oratory. To Invention he devotes 68 per cent of his
total space; to Arrangement, a little less than 2 per cent; to Style, slightly
more than 21 per cent; to Memory, about 4 per cent; and to Delivery,
about 2 per cent. These proportions are not greatly different from those
in the Rhetorica ad Herennium, which gives 43 per cent of its space to
inventio, 2 per cent to dispositio, 45 per cent to elocutio, 6 per cent to
memoria, and 4 per cent to pronuntiatio.

In his study of the sources of Wilson's Rhetorique, Russell H. Wagner
states that the Rhetorica ad Herennium, doubtless considered by Wilson
to be Cicero's, was one of Wilson's chief authorities, and that Wilson
also went to Erasmus "for leading ideals, for detailed matter, and for
examples and critical dicta"; Wagner indicates, moreover, that Wilson
draws to some extent upon Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria, upon
Cicero's De Inventione, De Oratore, De Partitions Oratoria, and Brutus,
and possibly also upon Cox's Rhethoryke.32 To these sources I would
want to add Kidbard Sherry's A Treatise of Schemes and Tropes, which

14 THE HERITAGE

I shall discuss later as the first treatise in English on the actual terms
of what is here being called stylistic rhetoric. Wilson relies upon Sherry
for English phraseology or for illustrations in his discussion of the three
kinds of style, in his definition of figure, of scheme, of gradatio, and in
his clarification of such stylistic concepts as aptness, metaphor, me-
tonymy, transumption, periphrasis, epenthesis, syncope, proparalepsis,
apocope, extenuatio, and dissolutum.33

"The finding out of apt matter, called otherwise Inuention, is a search-
ing out of things true, or things likely, the which may reasonablie set
forth a matter, and make it appeare probable." 34 With these words
Wilson opens his discussion of the first part of Ciceronian rhetoric. He
adds at once, "The places of Logique, giue good occasion to finde out
plentiful! matter." These places, as set forth in Wilson's Rule of Reason,
the first logic in English, are sixteen in number. They constitute in the
aggregate a machinery for the analysis of dialectical questions, even as
the nine positions of argument, to which reference was made in the
discussion of Alcuin's De Rhetorica, constitute a machinery of analysis
for rhetorical questions. Now Wilson does not expect the reader of his
Rhetorique to make use of all sixteen of the places of logic in conduct-
ing a rhetorical analysis of a subject. He indicates instead that six of
them are particularly helpful to the orator,\and he enumerates those
six.35 In addition, he sets forth the nine positions associated traditionally
with rhetoric, and discusses them.36 Thus his discussion of Invention in
rhetoric overlaps his discussion of Invention in dialectic— an untidiness
that Ramus was at that very moment condemning as it had appeared in
continental rhetorics earlier in the sixteenth century.

Wilson also permits his discussion of Arrangement to overlap Inven-
tion. Under Invention, as Cicero had sanctioned, Wilson discusses the
standard parts of the classical oration, and the materials appropriate to
each.37 Thus when he comes to Arrangement, where the parts of the
oration might logically be discussed, he sees that he has already said
most of what is needed for this topic. He contents himself with a sum-
mary of what he had discussed as he spoke of the parts of the oration,
and with a bit of advice on the necessity for constant discretion in
arranging materials for audiences.38

This brief discussion of Wilson's Rhetorique will have to suffice at
this time. It does scant justice to a work of ingenuity, good sense, and
learning. It also does not even suggest how far Wilson went in natural-
izing Ciceronian theory, and in giving it an English habitation and a
name. It does not indicate how seriously WiJ^o^lpoked at the English
bar and pulpit of his tim^, ^ixd how vigorously "Be strdye ,to make
Ciceronian rhetoric applicable to their problems. Nor does it comment
upon J/Vilson's analysis of the ancient memory system ^ devised with

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 15

special reference to oratory and explained in essential terms in the
Rhetorica ad Herennium. Wilson gives this oddity o£ Roman times a
noteworthy treatment and thus anglicizes it more completely than
Hawes had done in the Pastime of Pleasure. Wilson also gives Style a
noteworthy treatment as the third part of rhetoric. His famous protest
against the use of dark words and "ynkehorne termes" 39 occurs in this
part of his treatise. Style he defines attractively as follows: "Elocution
getteth words to set forth inuention, and with such beautie commendeth
the matter, that reason semeth to be clad in Purple, walking afore both
bare and naked/' 40 The true heads of his subsequent discussion are
"Plainnesse," "Aptnesse," "Composition," "Exornation"; 41 and his anal-
ysis of each is much more than a perfunctory attempt to get Latin ideas
into English. These and many other special points of distinction make
Wilson's Rhetorique one of the great books in its field, and are reasons
why I regret the brevity of this review of it.

Beginning in 1553, when it was first published in London, Wilson's
Rhetorique enjoyed great popularity for an entire generation. It
appeared in a second edition in 1560, in a third in 1562, in a fourth
in 1563, and in a fifth in 1567. Then for a while there seems to have
been a slackening market for it. But after a lapse of thirteen years,
successive reprintings again occurred in 1580, 1584, and 1585. 42 By that
time, the first English translation of the main terms of Ramistic rhetoric
had just appeared, and Ramus' famous Dialecticae Libri Duo had been
available in an English translation for eleven years. Thus the absence
of interest in Thomas Wilson's Rhetorique after 1585 may be explained
by the rise of interest in Ramus9 reformed version of Ciceronian rhetori-
cal and dialectical theory.

Thirty-six years after Wilson's Rhetorique had had what appears to
be its last sixteenth-century edition, the tradition which it had so well
represented was again revived. Its revival occurred in textbooks writ-
ten in Latin for students in the public schools. Thus the circulation of
the theory of Ciceronian rhetoric was confined in the early seventeenth
century to the younger segment of the population of England, and to
the atmosphere of the classroom and the study hall. Wilson had had
more ambitious plans for his work, as anyone who reads it will notice.

The first seventeenth-century textbook devoted to the revival of
Ciceronian rhetoric was written by Thomas Vicars and published at
London in 1621 under a Greek and Latin title, the xsipaycoyta Manv-
dvctio ad Artem Rhetoricam, that is, Guide to the Art of Rhetoric. In
its first edition the Guide contained an enumeration and discussion of
the five main procedures of Ciceronian rhetoric. A later edition dated
1628 at London adds a second book in which selected Ciceronian ora-
tions are analyzed according to the terms of the five procedures as set

16 THE HERITAGE

forth in Book I. The difference between the two parts of this 1628 work
is indicated as that between the genesis of the oration and its analysis.
The difference between rhetoric and logic is stated on the title page in
a conceit based upon Zeno's ancient epigram: "Rhetorica est palmac
similis, Dialectica pugno; Haec pugnat, palmam sed tamen ilia rcfert/* *3

Two other Latin rhetorical handbooks appeared soon after that of
Vicars. One was Thomas Farnaby's Index Rhetoricus, first published at
London in 1625, and reprinted many times in the seventeenth century. It
limits itself on its title page to the schools and to the instructing of those
of the tenderer ages; its doctrine is set forth in terms of four of Cicero's
five procedures, Memory being omitted altogether. Similar to it is
William Pemble's Enchiridion Omtorium, that is, Oratorical Manual,
published at Oxford in 1633,—except that Pemble limits himself to
Invention and Arrangement, after recognizing rhetoric to consist of
these two parts and Style and Delivery as well.44

Thus the Ciceronian rhetorical tradition was in being at the time of
Harvard's first Commencement, even if it had tended after the great
work of Thomas Wilson to be eclipsed by Ramistic rhetoric and to be
revived later in the form of Latin manuals for schoolboys. Let us now
examine the second pattern of English rhetoric, called here the stylistic,
to see what had happened to it during the period between the seventh
and the seventeenth century.

Ill

Stylistic rhetoric as a recognizable and distinctive tradition in rhetor-
ical theory in England has two main characteristics. First of all, it is
openly committed to the doctrine of Style as the most important part
of the five-part scheme just discussed. Secondly, it is openly mindful
that Invention, Arrangement, Memory, and Delivery, or combinations
of two or more of these other parts of rhetoric, are also legitimate topics
in the full rhetorical discipline. Readers of Cicero's Orator will recall
that its major emphasis is upon Style, although it gives some degree of
recognition to the other parts of rhetoric.45 Thus the Orator is impor-
tant as a source book in the history of stylistic rhetoric, although the
fourth book of the Rhetorica ad Herennium, the third book of Cicero's
De Oratore, and the eighth and ninth books of Quintilian's Institutio
Oratoria all contain a full treatment of Style as the verbal aspect of the
speaker's total problem, and all are sources of this or that work in the
post-classical development of the rhetoric I am now describing.

The first treatise by an Englishman in the field of stylistic rhetoric is
tie Venerable Bede's Liber de Schematibw et Tropis^ Bede is pre-
sumed to have written this work in 701 or 702.47 His immediate sources

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETOKIC 17

are chapters 36 and 37 of Book I of Isidore's Etymologiaef8 where Isi-
dore is discussing grammar on his way to a treatment of rhetoric and
dialectic in Book II.49 The fact that Bede's treatise on the schemes and
tropes is taken from Isidore's De Grammatica rather than from his De
Rhetorica might lead one to suppose that Bede is not to be classed
among rhetoricians but among grammarians. Indeed, Halm admits
Bede's Liber with great reluctance to a place in his collection of minor
Latin rhetorics, saying that he would willingly have left it out if his
plan did not seem to require him to accept all the items previously
allowed within that particular tradition.50 In other words. Halm seems
embarrassed by the nonrhetorical content of the Liber and by the
uncritical acceptance of that work as a rhetoric by his predecessors,
Pithou and Capperonnier, both of whom had included it in their Antiqui
Rhetores Latini. But students of the history of rhetoric have to accustom
themselves not to be embarrassed when a given rhetoric contains
material that appears elsewhere in grammars or dialectics. They have to
learn to argue that, if Bede's definitions of the schemes and tropes
come from a treatise on grammar by Isidore, and if Isidore in turn got
those definitions in part from the grammars of Donatus and Charisius,
one can nevertheless find the same materials in such still older works
as the Rhetorica ad Herennium and the Institutio Oratoria. Thus Bede's
Liber need not occasion apologies when we accept it among stylistic
ihetorics.

The method followed by Bede in treating the schemes and tropes is
simple: he enumerates seventeen schemes; he defines each and illus-
trates it from the Bible, except in one case, where his example is from
the Christian poet Sedulius 51; then he enumerates thirteen tropes,
defining each later and illustrating again from the Bible. His guiding
conception of these two big divisions of Style is clearly indicated in his
opening words:

On many occasions in writings it is customary for the sake of elegance that
the order of words as they are formulated should be contrived in some other
way than that adhered to by the people in their speech. These contrivances
the Greek grammarians call schemes, whereas we may rightly term them
attire or form or figure, because through them as a distinct method speech
may be dressed up and adorned. On other occasions, it is customary for a
locution called trope to be devised. This is done by changing a word from its
proper signification to an unaccustomed but similar case on account of ne-
cessity or adornment. And indeed the Greeks pride themselves upon having
been the discoverers of such schemes and tropes.52

Bede does not deal with any other topics of the complete Ciceronian
doctrine of style, nor does he specifically recognize in his Liber that
Style is only one of the five parts of rhetoric. But he surely was well

18 THE HERITAGE

acquainted with the five-part division of Ciceronian rhetorical theory.
He probably did not have any of Cicero's rhetorical writings in his own
library, but he did of course have Isidore's Etijinologiae9*A and Isidore
lists the five conventional parts of rhetorical theory in his own treatise
on rhetoric a few pages beyond his disquisition on the schemes and
tropes.

Stylistic rhetoric appears to have been the most popular form of rhe-
torical theory in England between the eighth and the fifteenth century.
Space does not permit us to examine here the various Latin writings
on this subject by Englishmen. A few representative authors should,
however, be mentioned. One of the foremost is John of Salisbury, whose
Metalogicon, as Atkins has observed, deals with rhetoric less as a matter
of Invention and Arrangement than of Style.54 Another is Geoffrey of
Vinsauf. His Poetria Nova, as I indicated earlier, recognizes the five
procedures of Ciceronian rhetoric and thus belongs to my first category;
but his Summa de Coloribus Rhetoricis is plainly in the stylistic tradi-
tion.55 Still another medieval Latin work in this tradition by an English-
man is John of Garland's Exempla Honestae Vitae, which Atkins
describes as "a text-book treating of the use of the rhetorical figures/' 5fl
These are all works in a class with Bede's Liber, and they were pro-
duced at a time when the full Ciceronian theory of rhetoric was being
little used, except by Geoffrey of Vinsauf as the framework for a treatise
on poetry.

The first printed English account of the stylistic aspect of rhetoric
occurred around 1481 with the publication at Caxton's press in West-
minster of a learned poetic allegory, The Court of Sapience,*7 to which
I have already made brief reference as awork which influenced Hawes
and was attributed by Hawes to John Lydgate. Modern scholarship
doubts that Lydgate wrote the Court, but not that Hawes imitated it.
As I said of it earlier, however, its treatment of rhetoric is briefer than
that in Hawes' work, and more in the stylistic tradition.

The Court recounts the poet's dream of a journey under the guidance
of Sapience, The final stages of the journey take the poet to the castle of
Sapience, where he visits the seven ladies, that is, the seven liberal arts.
Six seven-line stanzas are devoted to "Dame Rethoryke, Modyr of Elo-
quence/' or as a Latin headnote has it, to a "breuis tractatus de Rethor-
ica." 5S This brief tractate does not consist in an enumeration of the
schemes and tropes. But it does characterize Dame Rhetoric as if her
chief concern were the stylistic aspects of composition, Thus the func-
tion of rhetoric is described as that of teaching what vices in style to
avoid, what gay colors are included in the rhetorician's knowledge of
his craft, what differences there are among these colors, what properties
they have, how each thing declared may be painted, what distinctions

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 19

exist between "coma, colon, periodus," 59 and what works may be con-
sulted for information about the colors. Cicero is called "The chosyn
spowse vnto thys lady fre"; in his works is found "Thys gyltyd craft of
glory"; other authors who would teach of the colors are "Galfryde" and
"Januense," that is, Geoffrey of Vinsauf and Balbus de Janua, the latter
of whom is mentioned especially for the fourth book of his Catholicon.60
It is specifically indicated that the springs of eloquence are in sound
knowledge of the Code, the three Digests, the books of law and of
natural philosophy—a recognition, of course, of the underlying impor-
tance of Invention in the theory of discourse. The closing stanza gives
Dame Rhetoric jurisdiction over "prose and metyr," and lists those who
have excelled in each of these forms.

It was almost seventy years after the first edition of the Court, when
the sixteenth century had reached its midpoint, that the schemes and
tropes of the stylistic tradition appeared jor the first time in the English
language. The work which features them thus is Richard Sherry's A
Treatise of Schemes and Tropes, published at London in 1550.^5sTEave
already indicated, this work influenced the phraseology and illustrations
of Thomas Wilson's treatment of Style in his famous Rhetorique pub-
lished three years later, as one pioneering work is likely to influence
another if the later author has access to the earlier.

Sherry realized that his work was something new in the English
literary tradition— that it had no vernacular prototype. In fact, his dedi-
catory epistle "To the ryght worshypful Master Thomas Brooke Es-
quire" anticipates a public reaction made up of initial bewilderment:

I doubt not but that the title of this treatise all straunge vnto our Englyshe
eares, wil cause some men at the fyrst syghte to maruayle what the matter of
it should meaner yea, and peraduenture if they be rashe of iudgement, to cal
it some newe fangle, and so casting it hastily from them, wil not once vouch
safe to reade it: and if they do, yet perceiuynge nothing to be therin that
pleaseth their phansy, wyl count it but a tryfle, and a tale of Robynhoode.61

"These words, Scheme and Trope" he goes on, "are not vsed in our Eng-
lishe tongue, neither bene they Englyshe wordes." 62 I got acquainted
with them, he says later, when I read them to others in Latin ( Sherry
was a schoolmaster in Magdalene College school in Oxford from 1534
to 1540); and, he declares, since they helped me very much in the
exposition of good authors, "I was so muche the more ready to make
them speak English." 63 He wants them to speak English, moreover,
because the English language is being enriched, English literature is
becoming famous, and English learning needs these terms. It needs
them especially because "no lerned nacion hath there bene but y
learned in it haue written of schemes & fygures, which thei wold not
haue don, except thei had perceyued the valewe." 64

20 THE HERITAGE

On three occasions Slierry makes it plain that he is dealing with Style,
not as the only part of rhetoric, but as the third part in the traditional
Ciceronian pattern. The first occasion arises when he reminds serious
readers that it is their obligation to know the schemes and tropes:

For thys darre I saye, no eloquente wryter roaye be perceiued as he shuldc
be, wythoute the knowledge of them: for asmuche as al togethers they be-
longe to Eloquucion, whyche is the thyrde and pryncipall parte of rhctori-
que.65

The second occasion arises when he has finished his dedicatory letter
and is about to begin his treatise. The following headnote at this point
carries us into the text:

Schemes and Tropes. A briefe note of eloqucio, the third parte of Rhetoricke,
wherunto all Figures and Tropes be referied.66

On the third occasion, Sherry mentions explicitly two of the other pro-
cedures of Ciceronian rhetoric that lie adjacent to style. Tully and
Quintilian, he says at this point, thought that Invention and Arrange-
ment were marks of prudence and wit in any kind of composition, but
that Style was the peculiar mark of the orator as man of eloquence.07
As for the theory behind the schemes and tropes. Sherry takes the
same position that Bede had taken: that there is a normal, plain, and
ordinary way of speaking, used among the populace, and an unusual,
uncommon, extraordinary way, used among the elegant and educated.
This latter way is described by the schemes and the tropes, taken collec-
tively. These contrivances amount to all possible extraordinary patterns
of language which men can devise as a system of substitutes for pedes-
trian, everyday patterns. Here are Sherry's key definitions:

Scheme is a Greke worde, and signifyeth properlye the manor of gesture
that daunsers vse to make, when they haue won the best game, but by trans-
lacion is taken for the fourme, fashion, and shape of anye thynge expressed in
wryrynge or payntinge; and is taken here now of vs for the fashion of a word,
sayynge, or sentence, otherwyse wrytten or spoken then after the vulgar and
comen vsage, . . ,68

Fygtire, of Scheme y fyrst part, is a behaueoure, maner, or fashion, cythcr
of sentence, oracion, or wordes after some new wyse, other then men do
commenlye vse to wryte or speake . . . ,69

Emonge authors manye tymes vnder the name of figures, Tropes also be
comprehended: Neuerthelesse ther is a notable difference betwixt them* In
figure is no alteracion in the wordes from their proper significacions, but only
is the oracion and sentence made by them more plesaunt, sharpe and vehe-
ment, after y affeccion of him that speketih. or writeth: to y which vse although
tropes also do serue, yet properlye be they so called, because in them for
necessitye or garnyshynge, there is a mouynge and chaungynge of a wordc
and sentence, from theyr owne significacion into another, whych may agre
wyth it by a similitude.70

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 21

A change from the common pattern— this, then, is the concept behind
the schemes and the tropes. Thus if one says, "I was berattled/' instead
of "I was rattled," he has changed the common pattern of a word with-
out changing its literal meaning, and the scheme thus created is called
Prosthesis or Appositio.71 The purpose of this scheme is to call strong
attention to one's thought (or one's self) by adding some unusual ele-
ment to a familiar pattern. Now if one says, "I have but lately tasted
the Hebrew tongue," he has taken the word taste from its routine orbit
and transferred it to a different but analogous orbit, with the result that
the change thus produced, which constitutes a trope called Metaphora,
also calls memorable attention to one's thought.72

It would be suggestive to speculate upon a theory of communication
which emphasizes that true excellence is achieved only by a departure
from the natural pattern of everyday speech. That theory would appear
to be congenial to a society in which the holders of power and privilege
are hereditary aristocrats, who do not have to use speech to gain any-
thing for themselves. In such a society, the commoners, who do have to
use speech as one of their instruments in the quest for privilege, would
consider that the unusual pattern of communication might impress the
aristocrat and distinguish the commoners from the herd. Perhaps con-
siderations like these explain the enormous popularity of the schemes
and tropes as an element in education in the sixteenth century.

Sherry's treatment of the schemes and tropes is orderly and thor-
ough. I shall not have time, however, to comment further upon it here.
It might be mentioned as I leave it that Sherry is quite explicit about
the sources upon which his work is based. He speaks in his dedicatory
letter of having prepared himself for his present task by reading sundry
treatises, some written long ago, and some in his own day.73 He declares
that these he did not translate but drew upon.74 From the authors
explicitly mentioned by him then and later, it would appear that he
places primary reliance upon such modern works as Rudolphus Agri-
cola's De Inuentione Dialectica, Petrus Mosellanus' Tabulae de Schema-
tibus et Tropis, Thomas Linacre's Rudimentes Grammatices, and Eras-
mus' De Duplid Copia Verborum ac Rerum; whereas for the ancients
he goes to Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria, to Cicero's Orator, De Ora-
tore? and De Partitione Oratoria, and to Aristotle's Topics and Rhetoric.

Sherry uses at one point in his Treatise the image of a man getting
true pleasure from a goodly garden garnished with flowers only when
he knows the names and properties of what he sees therein.75 This
image may have suggested something to Ek^^ At any rate,

Peacharn published ^at London in 1577 a^lvorTT^^ as

Sh^ry's entitle fThe ^Garden of EZcRj^^ of

Grammerand Rhetoric^. 'lliS'worlc !F2a6re"ScEeiisive than the one just

22 THE HERITAGE

discussed, more extensive, too/ than Sherry's revised edition of 1555,
published at London as A Treatise of the Figures of Grammar and
Rhetorike 76; and it represents English stylistic rhetoric in full maturity.

Now, the Garden of Eloquence draws heavily upon Sherry's earlier
work, particularly upon the first edition. Space does not permit me to
set forth passages in Peacham that have a counterpart in Sherry. The
reader who wishes to assure himself of the similarity between Sherry's
edition of 1550 and Peacham's work might compare the discussion of
Expolition in the one treatise with that in the other.77 As for the simi-
larity between Sherry's revised edition and Peacharn's work, the reader
might compare what the former and what the latter say about Parti-
tion.78 These resemblances indicate, of course, that Peacham and Sherry
are in the same rhetorical tradition, and must be considered together.
But the one thing that brings them finally together, and dissociates them
forever from the Ramists, who were then coming into fashion, is that
Sherry and Peacham treat the schemes and tropes as in part the con-
"cera of grammar and in part the concern of rhetoric, whereas the
Ramists, as we shall see, insisted that grammar and rhetoric must not
be allowed to overlap, and that the schemes and tropes belonged only
to rhetoric.

Two other stylistic rhetorics in the tradition of Sherry and Peacham
were composed in the last decade of the sixteenth century. Incidentally,
a second edition of Peacham appeared in 1593, and may be taken as
evidence of the continuing interest in his elaborate work. But a more
popular work in his field appeared at London in 1592 with the publica-
tion of a new and augmented edition of Angel Day's The English
Secretorie. This enlarged edition of a work which had first come out
six years before contained a treatise on the tropes, figures, and schemes.
Day is no Ramist; he allows the schemes to be shared by grammar as
well as by rhetoric. But for those who wanted the tropes and figures
without the special context and treatment required by the Ramists,
Day's work was as good as any other, and it continued to be reprinted
during the next forty-five years.

The last stylistic rhetoric to require mention here is John Hoskins"
DirectionsTfor Speech and Style. This work is believed to have been
composed in the year 1599; portions of it were embedded in Ben Jonson's
Timber (1641), and a large part of it was printed without acknowledg-
ment in Thomas Blounfs Academie of Eloquence ( 1654 ) and in John
Smith's Mysterie of Rhetorique UnvaiTd (1657); but it did not achieve
an edition under its own author's name until 1935, when the late Pro-
fessor Hoyt H. Hudson brought it out in company with an excellent
introduction and notes.79 Like other rhetoricians in the stylistic tradi-
tion, Hoskins emphasizes the tropes and figures; but he does not do so

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 23

in the manner of the Ramists, for they would not permit recognition of
Invention and Disposition as parts of rhetoric, whereas Hoskins cheer-
fully begins with a nod at these two procedures. Hoskins might have
been expected to be a Ramist, too; Talaeus, Ramus' close collaborator,
and Sturm, the teacher of Ramus, are the only two modern authorities
whom he names in the list of authors used by him as sources.80

In the period between 1599 and 1642, four successive editions of
Angel Day's English Secretorie testify to the continuing interest of
Englishmen in stylistic rhetoric. But the tropes and figures, as a main
ingredient of that rhetoric, had meanwhile been appropriated by the
Ramists, as I have already suggested, and as I shall have occasion later
to discuss. Thus at the time of the first Commencement at Harvard,
only an acute observer, aware of the history of rhetoric during the hun-
dred years just past, would have been able to disentangle the old
stylistic rhetoric from the newer Ramistic rhetoric and to explain the
differences between them. But the fact is that, even if the old stylistic
rhetoric of Bede, Sherry, and Peacham had merged with Ramistic
rhetoric by 1642, the stylistic tradition itself in its substantive aspect
was at that date still very much alive, thanks to the special help it had
had from the Ramists.

The formulary pattern of English rhetoric before 1642 has to be men-
tioned by any historian of early rhetorical theory in England who is
striving to tell his story completely. Yet that historian also has to
acknowledge that of all segments of the English theory of communica-
tion, f orjooilary rltetorie-was1 the least popular, so far, at any rate, as the
sixteenth and- early seventeenth century are concerned.

In essence, for^rmlary, rhetoric in the period now under consideration
is illustrated by those works which consist of a series of model compo-
sitions or model parts of compositions for guiding students in the prac-
tice of communication.

Rhetorical education has always rested upon the assumption that
practice in communication is necessary for the development of pro-
ficiency, and that practice must involve experience with the typical
patterns of communication in civilized life. Sometimes rhetorical prac-
tice is regulated in the classroom by the study of models, sometimes by
the study of rhetorical theory, and occasionally by the whims and
vagaries of instructor or student. This third method of regulation is
usually permitted only in education as a private venture or in public
education at the higher levels of instruction. The second method of
regulation, where the study of theory accompanies practice, is perhaps

24 THE HERITAGE

the most widely used of all methods on the middle and upper levels
of the educational process. The patterns of theory which I am explain-
ing in this paper are all relevant to this second method. The first
method, that of regulating practice by the study of models, is usually
most popular on the lower levels of instruction or in the elementary
phases of the mastery of the act of communication. Thus formulary
rhetorics, which implement this method, ordinarily envisage the school-
boy as their reader, and ordinarily involve rhetorical theory only so far
as a few basic terms are necessary in giving directions for schoolboy
practice.

Formulary rhetoric is of course a part of the two streams of rhetorical
theory just discussed. Thomas Wilson's Rhetorique? for example, con-
tains model compositions to illustrate the theory of such standard com-
munications as the deliberative discourse, the letter of consolation, and
the legal argument.81 The same impulse to provide models in connec-
tion with theoretical terms is shown by Richard Sherry, who attaches to
his Treatise of Schemes and Tropes a "declamacion of a briefe theme,
by Erasmus of Roterodame." S2

Formulary rhetoric as an entity by itself begins to be a vernacular
development in England in the second quarter of the sixteenth century.
At first, however, it is a thing of shreds and patches, not a full-grown
pattern. Its beginnings are found in several popular collections of
passages from the classics as published at English presses: Nicholas
Udall's translation of excerpts from Terence, called Flovres for Latin®
Spekynge (London, 1533); Richard Taverners translation of selections
from the Apophthegmata of Erasmus, called The Garden of Wysdoni
(London, 1539); the same Taverners translations from the Chiliades of
Erasmus, called Prouerbes or Adagies (London, 1539). These collec-
tions, however, are more in the nature of commonplace books than of
formulary rhetorics. Their interest is centered in the thoughts conveyed
by the passages they contain, not in the rhetorical forms illustrated by
those passages. Moreover, they were probably often used as reference
books by preachers and writers in search of classical utterances on
common topics, and thus they would be more of a guide to the content
than to the method of a given discourse. The true formulary rhetoric
differs from them in having its interest centered in rhetorical forms, and
in having its selections cover a variety of occasions for discourse.

The firstjuilj^j.eveloed formular rhetoric to appear in English, and
teFi^^

the teFi^^ in the period -here under dis-

cussion/fs'TRfcIiard RainolMs , Potm^ This work,

as "Professor Johnson has shown, is mainly an EfrigBst adaptation of
Reinhard Lorich's Latin version of Aphthonius* Progymnasmata.84
Aphthonius is one of the three great names in the field of ancient formu-

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 25

lary rhetoric, the others being Theon and Hermogenes,85 Theon is
supposed to have lived in the first half of the second century A. D.; Her-
mogenes, in the second half of the same century; and Aphthonius, to-
wards the end of the fourth century. Not Aphthonius alone, but all of
them, composed works called Progymnasmata for rhetorical instruc-
tion.86

Rainolde, like Sherry, sees himself as a pioneer in his particular field.
But it is Wilson and not Sherry to whom he refers as he speaks in his
preface "To the Reader" of himself as innovator. He begins this preface
with mention of Aphthonius and Hermogenes, among others. He then
says that he has prepared the present work "because as yet the verie
grounde of Rhetorike, is not heretofore intreated of, as concernyng these
exercises, though in fewe yeres past, a learned woorke of Rhetorike is
compiled and made in the Englishe toungue, of one, who floweth in all
excellencie of arte, who in iudgement is profounde, in wisedome and
eloquence moste famous."

Rainolde's method of procedure in his work is to provide orations
upon the typical patterns of discourse. Before he does this, however, he
makes a few introductory comments. His distinction between logic and
rhetoric follows that in Thomas Wilson's The Rule of Reason and
amounts, as Wilson's had, to an expansion of Zeno's epigram about
logic being the closed fist and rhetoric the open hand.87 Few, he ob-
serves, possess both of these arts to perfection; those who do are most
noble and excellent. He names the famous orators of Greece and Rome,
and after some comment upon them he returns to Demosthenes, whom
he recalls as having once framed an oration upon a fable.88 This leads
him to define fables, to distinguish three types of them, and to comment
upon their use by orators and poets.89 He mentions Bishop Morton as
vising a fable of Aesop to answer his jailer, Buckingham; also Bishop
Fisher as using one in a speech in Parliament.90 Then he indicates that
an oration may be made upon a fable, and upon the following other
patterns: a Narration, a Chria, a Sentence, a Refutation, a Proof, a
Commonplace, a Praising, a Dispraising, a Comparison, an Ethopeia,
a Description, a Thesis, and a Law.91 Making orations upon these
patterns, he goes on, is called "of the Grekes Progimnasmata, of the
Latines, profitable introduccions, or fore exercises, to attain greater arte

and knowlege in Rhetorike ?> 92 "Therefore," he adds, "I title this

booke, to bee the foundacio of Rhetorike, the exercises being Progim-
nasmata" 9S

The exercises which follow are model speeches upon each of the
fourteen patterns previously enumerated. There are two speeches to
illustrate the Fable; five to illustrate Narration; and one to illustrate
each of the other patterns, Some of the model speeches run to

26 THE HEBITAGE

nine or ten pages; others, to six or eight; the shortest, to a half -page.
Each model is preceded by comments on the composition of that par-
ticular form. Also, most models are divided into clearly marked sec-
tions or parts. The speech to illustrate Refutation, for example, is on the
subject, "It is not like to be true, that is said of the battaill of Troie," 9 *
and it is divided into six parts. The first censures all poets as liars; the
second states Homer's theory of the cause of the Trojan war; the third
reduces that theory to a matter of doubt; the fourth, to an incredibility;
the fifth, to an impossibility and an unlikelihood; and the sixth, makes
out Homer's explanation of the cause of the war to be an unseemly and
unprofitable notion.

Rainolde's Foundation, published in 1563, appears not to have had
a second edition until 1945, the date of Professor Johnson's facsimile
reprint. Nevertheless, interest in formulary rhetoric did not completely
disappear in England during the closing years of the sixteenth century.
Angel Day's The English Secretorie, already mentioned as a stylistic
rhetoric of the fifteen-nineties, is also a formulary rhetoric by virtue of
the fact that it contains specimens of the various kinds of letters
expected of a practicing secretary. Two other works of the last decade
of the sixteenth century must likewise be remembered as collections of
exercises for speakers and writers. One of these works is Anthony
Mundy^s The Defence of Contraries ( London, 1593 ) ; the other, Lazarus
Piot's The Orator (London, 1596).

Mundy's Defence of Contraries, which declares itself in the preface
to be designed to show lawyers how to assemble proofs in support of
causes ordinarily considered indefensible, contains twelve declamations
on themes antagonistic to common opinion. In the first declamation,
poverty is held to be better than riches; in the second, beauty is proved
inferior to ugliness; in the third, ignorance is given a higher rating than
knowledge; in the seventh, drunkenness is declared better than sobriety;
and so on. Following the index of contents at the end of the work is "A
Table of such Paradoxes, as are handled in the Second Volume, which
vpon the good acceptation of this first Booke, shall the sooner be pub-
lished." The fourteenth and last declamation in this projected volume
promises to uphold the thesis "that a Lawyer is a most profitable mem-
ber in a Commonwealth." Apparently, however, Mundy never added
these fourteen declamations to his original twelve. The entire group of
twenty-six paradoxes, as Mundy knew them, were in a work published
at Paris in 1553 under the title, Paradoxes, ce sont propos contre la
comune opinion, debatus en forme de declamations foreses: pour exer-
citer les jeunes aduocats en causes diffidles. But Mundy may not have
known that this French, work was a translation* by Charles Estienne of
twenty-six of the thirty declamations which had been originally com-

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 27

posed in Italian by Ortensio Landi and published at Lyons in 1543 as
Paradossi cio£ sententie fuori del comun parere.

Lazarus Piot's The Orator, like Mundy's Defence of Contraries, is an
importation from abroad. Its title page indicates that it was "written in
French by Alexander Siluayn, and Englished by L. P." Siluayn turns out
to be Alexandre van den Busche; the French work in question turns out
to be Epitomes de Cent Histoires Tragicques; and "L. P." is identified in
the dedicatory letter of The Orator as Lazarus Piot. Until recently,
scholarship has considered Piot to be Anthony Mundy, and The Orator
to be an expansion of the Defence of Contraries, But in actual fact, as
Celeste Turner has shown in her Anthony Mundy An Elizabethan Man
of Letters, Piot was a literary rival of Mundy in the field of translating,
and The Orator does not bear the slightest relation to the Defence of
Contraries, except that both works are formulary rhetorics. Piot's The
Orator contains a preface "To the Reader" introducing his hundred
"Rhethoricall Declamations," and asserting that their use by "euery
member in our Commonweale, is as necessary, as the abuse of wilfull
ignorance is odious." He then specifies the readers whom he wants for
his declamations: "If thou studie law, they may helpe thy pleadings, or
i£ diuinitie (the reformer of law) they may perfect they [sic] persua-
sions. In reasoning of priuate debates, here maiest thou find apt meta-
phors, in incouraging thy souldiours fit motiues." The hundred declama-
tions that make up Piot's collection are organized thus: the number
and title of the declamation are first given; then in italic type is a
brief statement of its occasion; then in roman type is the declamation in
two parts, one part being the speech made in accusation, the other, the
speech made in reply. Declamation 95 will serve to illustrate how the
two speeches relate to each other in every one of the exercises. In the
first speech of this Declamation, a Jew contests a judicial ruling that he
must on pain of death take no more or no less than an exact pound of
flesh as bond for the debt which a Christian had not paid on the proper
date. The other speech, by the Christian, claims that the original bond
should not be required because of his present willingness to pay the
debt in money. Declamation 95 is of interest to Shakespearean scholars,
some of whom suggest that Shakespeare derived hints from it for his
famous scene in The Merchant of Venice, and that the earliest possible
date of composition of that play may thus be fixed at 1596, when Piot's
The Orator was published.

In the forty-six years between 1596 and 1642, formulary rhetorics in
the tradition of Rainolde, Mundy, and Piot appear to have gained more
of a foothold in English secondary education than they had been able
to do previously. I shall enumerate the chief works in this growing
movement towards the use of the rhetorical model, although the dis~

28 THE HERITAGE

cussion of them must await another occasion. Perhaps first in time was
John Clarke's Transitionum Rhetoricarum Formulae, in Usitm Schola-
rwn (London, 1628). But the same author's Formulae Qratoriae, which
had reached a fourth edition by 1632, appears to have been the most
influential work in the field of formulary rhetoric in the period before
the first Commencement at Harvard. Thomas Farnaby's Index Rhdori-
cus, already mentioned in connection with the revival of interest in
Ciceronian rhetoric during the first half of the seventeenth century,
should now be listed among formulary rhetorics of that period; for by
1638 the Index had acquired a section of "Formulae Oratoriae" to go
with its exposition of four of the topics of Cicero's theory. The third and
last of the formulary rhetorics to require mention here is Thomas
Home's xsipocycoyioc sive Manuductio in Aedem Palladis (London,
1641 ) . This little book of 175 pages of text contains a general introduc-
tion on reading and writing, a series of rhetorical precepts, and a con-
cluding section of "Exemplaria." It would seem to be the final illustra-
tion of formulary rhetoric in the period under survey here.

Between 1584 .and- 1642, the Ramistic pattern of rhetoric and of dia-
lectic constituted the dominant theory of communication in England;
arid of all the theories under discussion here, it is the one which the first
graduating class at Harvard understood best. We shall see later why it
can be confidently asserted that that first graduating class understood
best the Ramistic theory of communication. Just now it is more to the
point to observe that Ramistic rhetoric and dialectic, so much a matter
of intimate knowledge on the part of the educated Englishman of the
period of Marlowe, Shakespeare, and Jonson, became obsolete at the
end of the seventeenth century, and dropped out of sight altogether,
with the result that even historians of literary theory did not until
recently begin to recognize how important Ramus' version of these two
arts was in its own time.95

Tl^R§i»isMe-*iieorj qf, ppiOTiunication means two things. It means
firstTIiat the three liberal arts^ grammar, rlietoric? tod dialectic, are
severely dep^rbueatalized., and separated one from another so that
materials formerly claimed by two of them are mad6 flie exclusive and
fin^l property of on$ or the other. It means secondly that each, of these
liberal arts is Arranged, for the reader pr student $o that he encounters
first tEe definition of title art he is mastering^ thea ar statement dividing
it into jtwo >mw parts, f^en 0 treatise on one of those parts, and then a
treat^e on the other, each maiii part being divided and subdivided in
its turn until finally the foundation terms and illustrations are set fortk

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 29

The first of these characteristics of Ramism can be seen in any Ramis-
tic grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric of the period under discussion here.
A Ramistic^grarAinar is always divided into two parts, Etymology and
Syntax. A Ramistic didgctjfe is always divided into two parts, Invention
and Arrangement. A Ramistic rhetoric is always divided into two parts.
Style and Delivery. Never, as in the old stylistic pattern of English
rhetoric, did the Ramists permit tropes and figures to be classed as
grammatical and rhetorical, for that kind of thinking suggested an
untidy duplication between grammar and rhetoric, as if distinctions had
become blurred and confused. Never, as in the system of scholastic
learning, did the Ramists permit rhetoricians to write upon Invention
and Arrangement, since that would mean a duplication between their
art and dialectic, which, as we noticed earlier, also claimed Invention
and Arrangement as its own. Never, as in the old Ciceronian theory of
rhetoric, did the Ramists allow the theory of the parts of an oration to
be covered under the topic of Invention, since that would sanction a
theft by Invention of materials belonging properly to the topic of
Arrangement.

The second of the two main characteristics of Ramism is also obvious
in treatises on the three liberal arts in the late sixteenth and early
seventeenth century. The best place to look for an illustration of this
characteristic is in Ramus* own Dialectique, which was published at
Paris in 1555 as his French version of the system also stated in his
Dialecticae Libri Duo (Paris, 1556). The text proper of the Dialectique
begins with a definition: Dialectic^isjhe^^^ Next

comes a brief comment on tmV3efinition, with citations from Plato and
Aristotle. Next comes the partition: Dialectic has two parts, Invention
and Arrangement. Each of these terms is at once defined, the defini-
tions crisply discussed, and the lines of difference between them estab-
lished. Invention is then made to assume the duty of explaining what
arguments are and where they dwell. Arguments are then classified
as artificial or inartificial; artificial arguments are divided into the
primary and the derivative primary; primary arguments are at once
given four species; the first species is at once given four aspects. Now,
these four aspects constitute the first cluster of Ramus' foundation
terms. By this time we have reached page 6 of a treatise which runs to
140 pages, and Ramus' analysis of the forms of argument is ready to
begin. The rest of this work is as severely schematized as the part I have
just described. Divisions of material are always enumerated with mathe-
matical precision; transitions are always marked, although abruptly,
and without grace; illustrations for each basic term appear with the
regularity of the refrain at the end of stanzas of a song.

These two characteristics of Ramism are derived from laws which

30 THE HERITAGE

Ranrus thought to be the great controlling principles of the philosophy
of learning. He applied these principles in the first instance to the rela-
tions between subject and predicate in any given logical proposition,06
because of course the logical proposition was the form in which knowl-
edge got itself expressed, and thus the laws governing those proposi-
tions were in reality the very determinants of knowledge. But as time
went on, these principles came to be applied to the relations between
one statement and another in a given structure of statements. In this
latter environment these principles are customarily called by the
Ramists the law of justice, the law of truth, and the law of wisdom.97

The law of justice is perhaps best explained as a prohibition against
allowing a learned treatise to deal with more than one field of knowl-
edge. Thus if the subject of a treatise is logic, no statements belonging
to rhetoric or grammar should be made therein. The law of truth is a
prohibition against allowing a learned treatise to contain statements
only partly true or true only on occasion. A statement on dialectic in a
treatise on dialectic, for example, must not be subject to exceptions or
to occasional applications to other disciplines. The law of wisdom is a
prohibition against allowing a learned treatise to be a disorderly mixture
of general principles, particular statements, and specific cases. Defini-
tions, which by nature are general, belong, that is, on one plane, Parti-
tions on a lower, Subdivisions on a still lower, and so on.

Roland Macllmaine, first Briton to translate Ramus' dialectical theory
into English, prefaced that work with an "Epistle to the Reader/' in
which he shows the exuberance of the Ramists as they contemplated
the workings of their master's three rules upon Aristotelian dialectic
and upon what I have been calling here the Ciceronian theory of rheto-
ric. My little book, says Macllmaine, contains all the logical doctrine
to be found anywhere in Aristotle, and all the logical doctrine to be
found anywhere in Cicero or Quintilian.08 Here are the words used by
Macllmaine to describe how the application of Ramus* three rules to
the logical and rhetorical writings of these three great ancients will
result in a reformed dialectic or logic:

Take the forenamed bookes, and with thy rule of Justice gene to euery
arte his owne, and surely if my iudgement dothe not farre deceaue me, thou
must geue some thing to the Arte of Grammer, some thing to Rethoricke,
some thing to the fower mathematical! artes, Arithemeticke, Geometric,
Astrologie and Musicke, some thing also (althoughe but litle) to Phisicke,
naturall Philosophic, and diuinitie. And yet all that is in these bookes (only
the fore said digressions excepted) dothe appartaine eyther to the inuention
of Logicke, or els to the iudgemente. Now gather togeather that wich re-
mainethe, after euery arte hathe receiued his owne, and see if there be any
false, ambiguous or vncertein thing amongest it, and yf there be (as in dede
there is some) take thy documente of veritie, and put out all suche sophis-

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 31

ticall speakinges. And last perceiue if all thinges be handled according to
their nature, the generall generallye, and the particuler particulerlie, if not,
take thy rule of wysdome, and do according as the third documente teach-
ethe thee: abolyshe all tautalogies and vayne repetitions, and so thus muche
being done, thou shalt comprehende the rest into a litle rome."

Now, Ramus' reformed rhetoric, which began on the assumption that
Invention and Arrangement belonged to dialectic, and continued on the
assumption that Style and Delivery were purely and properly rhetorical,
was written out by his good friend and colleague, Audomarus Talaeus,
as I indicated earlier. Talaeus' rhetorical system, published at Paris in
1544 as the Institutiones Oratoriae, and later as the Rhetorica, accepts
explicitly these two assumptions of Ramus,100 and proceeds to reduce
Style as the first part of the new rhetoric to Tropes and Figures, whereas
Delivery, the second part of the new rhetoric, is made to consist of
Voice and Gesture. In this form the rhetorical aspect of Ramus' theory
of communication was introduced into England.

The story of Ramus' influence upon English rhetoric has already been
sketched in another place,101 and only a few points need be repeated
here. One is that, after Macllmaine gave Ramus' Dialecticae Libri Duo
its first Latin edition on English soil in 1574, and its first English trans-
lation that same year, Ciceronian rhetoric went into an eclipse in Eng-
land for a half-century, its ancient procedures being carried on in part
by Ramistic dialectic and in part by Ramistic rhetoric.102 Another point
to be remembered is that many other Englishmen besides Macllmaine
had an important role in making the Ramistic theory of communication
popular in England before 1642. Chief among these are Dudley Fenner,
Abraham Fraunce, Charles Butler, Samuel Wotton, Thomas Spencer,
Alexander Richardson, Robert Fage, and John Barton.

Dudley Fenner's importance lies in the fact that his Artes of Logike
and Rethorike, published anonymously at a continental press in Mid-
delburg in 1584, and in a second edition under Fenner's name at the
same place four years later, is the first one-volume English translation
of the main heads both of Ramus' Dialecticae Libri Duo and Talaeus'
Rhetorica. Fenner does not acknowledge his work as a translation of
these two authors, an indication, no doubt, that, to all of his contem-
poraries at all interested in logic and rhetoric, such an acknowledgment
would be superfluous.

Abraham Fraunce is important as the second English translator of
the main heads of both the Dialecticae Libri Duo and the Rhetorica.
Unlike Fenner, however, Fraunce published his translations separately,
the first as The Lawiers Logike (London, 1588), and the other at the
same place and in the same year as The Arcadian Rhetorike.™* The
Arcadian Rhetorike differs in two ways at least from Fenner's similar

32 THE HERITAGE

work: it translates the major points of Talaeus' doctrine of Delivery,
whereas Fenner had not; and it provides its illustrations from among
standard classical and modern authors, including Sidney, whereas
Fenner had found his illustrations in the Bible. The Lawiers Logike
also differs from Fenner s similar work in placing a heavy emphasis not
only upon the relation between logic and law but also upon the exposi-
tion of leading points of Ramistic doctrine.

Charles Butler is an important figure in the history of Ramistic rhe-
toric on two counts. First, his Rhetoricae Libri Duo, first published in
1597, 10i carried Ramistic rhetoric into the public schools of England,
and enjoyed a phenomenal success, being still mentioned as a popular
book in 1659.105 Secondly, his Oratoriae Libri Duo, first published at
Oxford in 1629, pays a handsome tribute to Ramus' reform of the liberal
arts, and at the same time proceeds to violate one of the cardinal tenets
of that reform by offering a theory of Invention, Arrangement, and
Memory, as if the first two of these terms were no longer the exclusive
property of logic.100 Butler's tribute to Ramus occurs as he is making
ready to adapt to the needs of oratory Ramus' doctrine of the places of
dialectical Invention. Says he:

These brief and methodical precepts concerning the places or kinds of argu-
ments are supplied from Peter Ramus, whose singular acuteness in rebuilding
the Arts I am never able to admire enough; and they are not so much as-
sembled in part as adopted in full. Except some in Ramus are brought forth
somewhat differently here, to the end that they may be adapted to the use
of oratory. But not of course in any wrong sense. For whatever cannot be set
forth in a better fashion, why should it be made worse by change? 10T

When Butler uttered these words in 1629, he apparently was not aware
that fifty-five years before a good English Ramist would have con-
sidered it improper to treat the places of Invention anywhere but in a
treatise on dialectic. In fact, Roland Macllmaine? whose enthusiasm ior
Rarnism has already been noticed, said in the prefatory "Epistle to the
Reader" accompanying his translation of 1574 that any learned writer
must avoid the very thing Butler later did. MacIImaine's words are:

Is he not worthie to be mocked of all men, that purposetlie to wryte of
Grammer, and in euery other chapiter mynglethe something of Logfcke, and
some thing of Hethoricke: and contrarie when he purposetlie to write of
Logicke dothe speake of Grammer and Rethoricke.108

Samuel Wotton, Thomas Spencer, and Robert Page are worthy of
mention in a history of Ramism in England because each of them pub-
lished a translation of Ramus' Dialecticae Libri Duo in the six years
between 1626 and 1632, when interest in that work appears to have
been especially strong.100 Alexander Richardson is of importance for his

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 33

English commentary on Ramistic dialectic, published at London in 1629
as The Logicians School-Master: or, A Comment vpon Ramvs Logicke.
John Barton is of importance because his Art of Rhetorick Concisely
and Compleatly Handled, which appeared at London in 1634, is thor-
oughly Ramistic in its treatment of rhetoric, even though Barton shows
some tendency in his preface, "To the Reader/' to question whether
Style and Delivery are the only concerns of rhetorical theory.110 Barton
opens the actual text of his treatise with the following words:

Rhetorick is the skill of using daintie words, and comely deliverie, whereby
to work upon mens affections. It hath two parts, Adornation and Action.111

Thereafter Barton discusses Adornation as an exclusive product of the
tropes and figures, whereas Action is to him a matter of gesture and
utterance. The English text of his work runs to thirty-five pages, after
which is a Latin translation of it, entitled "Rhetorices Enchiridion."

Barton's Art of Rhetorick is the last example of Ramistic theory to
receive consideration here, where I am limiting myself to the period
before Harvard's first Commencement. Ramistic Jheory^ still had vitality
by 1642, and it was to exercise a contirnTfng influence upon English
rhetoric during the remainder of the seventeenth century. But forces
were beginning to work against it by 1642y and they were ultimately to
make it look obsolete, even a? at first it had made Ciceronian rhetoric
look cumbersome, redundant, and medieval. One of the forces working
against Ramism in the latter part of the sixteen-hundreds had been set
in motion by the publication of Francis Bacon's philosophical writings
in the early years of that very century, and to that author we must now
turn for a rhetorical theory that stands as a counterpoise to the existing
theories of its time.

Francis Bacon's complete theory of rhetoric exists in passages scat-
tered throughout his many works. I shall not attempt here to recon-
struct that theory, because in the first place I would not have room to
do so, and in the second place that very subject has already received
a full measure of attention and an able treatment by Professor Karl
Wallace.112 What I shall do here is to confine myself to the Advance-
ment of Learning, which between 1605 and 1642 received at English
presses four editions in English and one in Latin 113; and to show that
Bacon's ejcdlent jliscussto^ only

anTipress reaction to stylistic, Ciceronian^ J: orrrmlary, ,and Ramistic
i-fijpf pric^ fmt also an indication oTa~new future for ffie^^ciy.dE com-

34 THE HERITAGE

Stylistic rhetoric, with its preponderant emphasis upon the third part
of the Ciceronian program, and with its delight in enumerating the
tropes and figures as standard ways in which verbal expression could
depart from the ordinary patterns of speech, receives attention in Book
I of the Advancement of Learning, where Bacon is speaking of the three
diseases which had beset learning in the preceding century. One of
these diseases Bacon calls "delicate learning,"— learning that strives for
"vain affectations." 114 This particular disease turns out in Bacon's
description to be an excessive addiction to stylistic rhetoric.

Bacon explains the origin of this malady of culture by saying that
Martin Luther, as a member of the party of reform in his own time, had
summoned ancient authors to bear witness against that time, and thus
had encouraged an exact study of the language of those authors, and "a
delight in their manner of style and phrase." lir> Meanwhile, the old
party, the schoolmen, "whose writings were altogether in a differing
style and form," 116 had offered opposition to the new party. The peo-
ple, who were the prize of war in the struggle between the two parties,
and whom both parties were bent upon winning and persuading, caused
the development of a type of eloquence in which variety of discourse
was thought "the fittest and forciblest access into the capacity of the
vulgar sort." 11T What Bacon adds at this point may be quoted to show
that these pressures led to the partial eclipse of the rhetoric of Inven-
tion and Arrangement and to the overemphasis upon the rhetoric of
Style:

So that these four causes concurring, the admiration of ancient authors, the
hate of the schoolmen, the exact study of languages, and the efficacy of
preaching, did bring in an affectionate study of eloquence and copie of
speech, which then began to flourish. This grew speedily to an excess; for
men began to hunt more after words than matter; and more after the choice-
ness of the phrase, and the round and clean composition of the sentence, and
the sweet falling of the clauses, and the varying and illustration of their works
with tropes and figures, than after the weight of matter, worth of subject,
soundness of argument, life of invention, or depth of judgment, IIB

In the list of authors cited immediately by Bacon to illustrate exces-
sive devotion to the stylistic aspect of communication, we find critics
of Ramism like Ascham, and precursors of Ramism like Sturm, whom
Ramus himself acknowledges as his teacher.110 Thus Bacon's disap-
proval of stylistic rhetoric may be accepted as criticism of the Sherry-
Peacham-Hoskins tradition as well as criticism of Talaeus, Fenner, and
Fraunce. To both traditions the following words of Bacon apply as he
summarizes the first disease of learning:

Here therefore the first distemper of learning, when men study words and not
matter: whereof though I have represented an example of late times, yet it

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 35

hath been and will be secundum majus et minus in all time, ... It seems to
me that Pygmalion's frenzy is a good emblem or portraiture of this vanity:
for words are but the images of matter; and except they have life of reason
and invention, to fall in love with them is all one as to fall in love with a
picture.120

Towards the Ciceronian tradition Bacon shows more respect than he
does towards stylistic rhetoric. As he discusses Natural Philosophy in
Book II of the Advancement of Learning, he speaks of his intention to
use the word Metaphysic in a sense of his own; but he says he hopes
men of judgment will see "that in this and other particulars, whereso-
ever my conception and notion may differ from the ancient, yet I am
studious to keep the ancient terms." 121 Bacon is indeed studious to keep
the ancient terms of Ciceronian rhetoric within his philosophy of
learning. He is also studious, of course, to show wherein his own con-
ceptions differ from the ancient. Thus he gives the five procedures of
Cicero's rhetorical theory a place in learning, not when he speaks of
rhetoric itself, but as he approaches that subject.

These five procedures, condensed into four, appear as he begins his
discussion of the Intellectual Arts. Here are his own words:

The Arts Intellectual are four in number; divided according to the ends
whereunto they are referred, for man's labour is to invent that which is
sought or propounded; or to judge that which is invented; or to retain that
which is judged; or to deliver over that which is retained. So as the arts must
be four; Art of Inquiry or Invention: Art of Examination or Judgment; Art of
Custody or Memory; and Art of Elocution or Tradition.122

A few pages later, Bacon defines "Tradition" as "Delivery"— "the
expressing or transferring our knowledge to others." 123 Thus to him the
terms Style and Delivery of Ciceronian rhetoric become a single term,
Tradition; and Tradition stands for thd process of -communication, to
which grammar, logic, and rhetoric make their distinctive contributions.
At the end of Book I of the Advancement of Learning Bacon speaks of
books under the image of ships which "pass through the vast seas of
time, and make ages so distant to participate of the wisdom, illumina-
tions, and inventions, the one of the other." 124 These books, these com-
munications, are the product of the great Intellectual Art, Tradition;
and, in Bacon's analysis, grammar contributes to Tradition by supply-
ing knowledge of speech and words, logic, by supplying knowledge of
the method of presentation, and rhetoric, by supplying knowledge of
the means by which thoughts may be vividly represented to man's
imagination.125

Before Bacon discusses Tradition as the fourth Intellectual Art, he
speaks of the other three. He finds the first one, Invention, to be defi-
cient so far as it might address itself to a technique by which new

36 THE HERITAGE

knowledge is discovered. He finds it more than sufficient, however, in
respect to speech or argument, although, as he emphasizes, this sort of
invention is not properly invention in the sense of the discovery of
something new, but invention only in the sense of a resummoning of
what we already know.120 He indicates two existing mechanisms for
assisting invention in this latter sense: the promptuaries, and the
topics.127 The promptuaries include the doctrine of positions in Ciceron-
ian rhetoric, and collections of such ready-made devices as speech intro-
ductions.128 The topics are made up of the places of logic.329

Bacon's treatment of Invention may well be the first important rein-
terpretation of the theory of rhetorical invention to be made in the
Christian era. It indicates that the classical theory carries the speaker
back to all the general wisdom which, on the one hand, is relevant to
his subject, and, on the other, is known already. It also indicates that,
good as the classical theory is for its purposes, it cannot give the speaker
new facts about his subject, for these new facts corne only as that sub-
ject is studied in and for itself. Thus Bacon's criticism of Invention may
be taken in historical perspective to suggest the ultimate disappearance
from rhetorical theory of the elaborate Latin doctrine of postures or
positions of argument, and the ultimate emergence in rhetorical theory
of the doctrine that the speaker learns what to say only by the most
conscientious study of the facts of the matter with which his speech
deals.

Bacon's discussion of Judgment and Memory as the second and third
of the Intellectual Arts need not be summarized here. I should only
like to say that, when Bacon speaks of Memory, he shows his knowl-
edge of the memory system I have mentioned before in connection
with my account of Hawes and Wilson.130

When Bacon comes to discuss rhetoric as the third science in the
process of Delivery or Tradition, grammar and logic being, as I have
said, the other two, he begins with these words;

Now we descend to that part which concerneth the Illustration of Tradition,
comprehended in that science which we call Rhetoric, or Art of Eloquence;
a science excellent, and excellently well laboured.131

He then mentions the rhetorics of Aristotle and Cicero as works in
which those writers "exceed themselves." 132 As for his own conception
of this science, his words cut through to the very essentials:

The duty and office of Rhetoric is to apply Reason to Imagination for the
better moving of the will.133

In his ensuing elaboration of this thesis, he says in effect: if speakers
take the truth and state it merely in terms of "naked propositions and

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 37

proofs/' 134 the Reason of man may accept it, and want to follow it; but
the Passions or Affections of man, a rebellious and unruly faculty, may
not accept it as truth, may want to follow something else; in this con-
flict between Reason and the Affections, a victory for the Passions would
be inevitable, "if Eloquence of Persuasions did not practise and win
the Imagination from the Affection's part, and contract a confederacy
between the Reason and Imagination against the Affections." 135 In
other words, Rhetoric becomes the means by which man appeals to
the Imagination, and wins this faculty to the support of Reason, so
that both faculties together can nullify the disruptive effects of the
Passions, and can thus control the Will.

Shot full as it is with the imagery of statecraft and faculty psychology,
this theory of rhetoric nevertheless seems suddenly to reach back
through the centuries to the pre-Ciceronian era, when Plato was dis-
cussing rhetoric in Phaedrus and was analyzing the soul of man under
the figure of the charioteer and the two horses. That Bacon had been
reading Phaedrus before he wrote his account of rhetoric in the Ad-
vancement of Learning is proved by the fact that he quotes that work
shortly after his admiring references to the rhetorics of Cicero and
Aristotle.136 Another proof of the influence of Plato upon Bacon in the
field of rhetoric comes when Bacon suggests that the proofs of rhetoric
must differ according to the auditors, and that this notion "in perfection
of idea, ought to extend so far, that if a man should speak of the same
thing to several persons, he should speak to them all respectively and
several ways"— a suggestion that Plato makes much of in Phaedrus.137
Incidentally, it is this Platonic notion that Bacon recommends for fur-
ther inquiry by the coming generation of rhetoricians.138

Thus far this discussion of Bacon's rhetorical theory has involved an
analysis of his disapproval of stylistic rhetoric, whether in the tradi-
tional or the Ramistic pattern, and an analysis of his wish at once to
preserve and to reinterpret the chief terms of Ciceronian rhetoric. It
has been emphasized that Bacon's reinterpretation of the term Invention
lgoks_toward, although it doeiTTl^ the

doctrine of positions ftttttt rhetorical theory. It has also been indicated
that Bacon^s reinterpfelaffo^qiF Delivery as Elocution or Tradition, and
of rhetoric as the "Illustration of ^f^^a^^ ^fStoies to rhetoric. its
commuriicatLve function and gives it, not by implication butjeroressly,
the task of reaching and persuading" mien. It has also Been shown" that
Baconlt&plcs''ofl'aifuture rfiefptf^^effpMliy tP,ttiie,srtudy^of tibe rela-
^E^k^SS^S^^^^^^^Ji^ audience^^^diQW.?. Let us n'b^bflflfly
examine Bacon's reaction to Ramistic logic and to formulary rhetoric.

Raraus had ponceived of the process of communication as a whole to
which dialectic contributed Invention and Arrangement; and to which

38 THE HEKITAGE

rhetoric contributed Style and Delivery. Moreover, Arrangement was to
Ramus a term which included the whole subject of method in dis-
course. His theory of method was that a learned treatise should be
organized by a procedure of definition, partition, and illustration, with
bipartite divisions of subject matter wherever possible. A popular
treatise, he thought, could be organized less severely, but his followers
tended to slight this aspect of his theory, and to emphasize the other.139
When Bacon comes to discuss method as the second of the three arts
of Tradition or communication, he makes it a part of logic, as Ramus
had done. He says that the subject of method "hath moved a contro-
versy in our time" 14°— an obvious reference to the dispute between
Ramists and the scholastics upon this matter. Then he indicates what
to him is the difference between one sort of communicative method and
the other:

And therefore the most real diversity of method is of method referred to Use,
and method referred to Progression; whereof the one may be termed Magis-
tral, and the other of Probation.141

The first of these methods Bacon explains obliquely as that form of
presentation which is best for making knowledge believed; the second,
as that form of presentation which is best for getting knowledge
examined. He finds this second method to be neglected in his time.142
The first method, which was precisely what Ramus regarded as the
method for the learned treatise, Bacon finds to be misused in the truly
scientific discourse, and to be more appropriate to the teacher.

Thus Bacon differs from Ramus on the question of the method to be
followed in organizing a work of science or learning. litmus wants a
dogmatic method, Bacon a suggestive. But Bacon has one 'further
objection to Ramus' concept of method in communication; he believes
that Ramus' three laws are excellent, but that the application of the law
of wisdom to the learned treatise has produced a "canker of Epitomes/'
and a "uniform method and dichotomies," the result of which has been
that "the kernels and grains of the sciences leap out, and they are left
with nothing in their grasp but the dry and barren husks." 14S

One other difference between Bacon and Ramus should be noted. It
concerns the relation of logic to rhetoric. Whereas Ramus believed these
two arts to be divided in respect to subject matter, so that logic would
always discuss Invention and Arrangement, with rhetoric always lim-
ited to Style and Delivery, Bacon sees the two arts as operating in two
different spheres of communication, one sphere being the world of
learning, the other, the world of practical affairs. Says Bacon:

It appeareth also that Logic differeth from Rhetoric, not only as the fist from
the palm, the one close the other at large; but much more in this, that Logic

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 39

handleth reason exact and in truth, and Rhetoric handleth it as it is planted
in popular opinions and manners. And therefore Aristotle doth wisely place
Rhetoric as between Logic on the one side and moral or civil knowledge on
the other, as participating of both. . . ,144

Bacon closes his account of rhetoric with a note about its present
deficiencies, and it is here that he mentions formulary rhetoric. He had
touched upon it before in his remarks upon Invention, as my discussion
of his attitude toward promptuaries has shown. Now he suggests that a
preparatory store of theses should be made up for the use of speakers
and that a collection of formulas representing introductions, conclu-
sions, digressions, transitions, and excusations should be undertaken.145
Thus h^wants formulary rhetoric enriched, and this enrichment came
later, as we have seen, in the works of Clarke, Farnaby, and Home.

Bacon's rhetorical theory did not replace the theories which had
flourished in England during the sixteenth century. Indeed, as I have
shown, Ciceronian rhetoric was revised by Vicars, Farnaby, and Pemble
in the period between 1620 and 1640; and that was the time when the
Advancement of Learning was being given four separate editions.
Meanwhile, Ramistic rhetoric was merging with the older English
stylistic rhetoric, without loss to the popularity of the tropes and the
figures. And in the same period, formulary rhetoric was being improved
in the direction which Bacon had indicated. But Bacon's theory had
three advantages over its rivals. First, it was stated in a work that
exercised a profound influence upon the intellectual life of the seven-
teenth century. Secondly, it brought to rhetorical theory the stimulating
influence of Plato and Aristotle at a time when traditional English
theory had hardened into perfunctory conventions. Thirdly, it was for-
mulated, not in what Bacon somewhat scornfully terms the Magistral
method, but in what he approvingly calls the method of Probation.
That is to say, it was stated to invite further inquiry rather than to force
assent. In Book I of the Advancement of Learning, Bacon had observed
that "knowledge, while it is in aphorisms and observations, it is in
growth; but when it once is comprehended in exact methods, it may per-
chance be further polished and illustrate, and accommodated for use
and practice; but it increaseth no more in bulk and substance." 146 This
latter method Bacon did not allow to enter into his rhetorical theory.
He fashioned his theory in aphorisms and observations, and so left it
in growth.

How far English rhetoric developed in the seventeenth century to-
wards a new theory of communication is a subject which lies outside
the scope of my present essay. But such a development did take place.
It can be seen taking place in the decision of the Royal Society to keep
out of their scientific writing "these specious Tropes and Figures/' to

40 THE HERITAGE

keep out also "all the amplifications, digressions, and swellings of style,"
and to exact "from all their members, a close, naked, natural way of
speaking." 147 It can be seen taking place in the renewed interest in
Aristotle's Rhetoric among Englishmen during the seventeenth century,
as evidenced especially by Thomas Hobbes' English abridgement of
that work, published about 1637 under the title, A Brief e of the Art of
Rhetorique. It can be seen taking place in Joseph GlanvnTs An Essay
Concerning Preaching, published at London in 1678. And it can be seen
taking place in the interest shown in the first English translation of The
Port Royal Logic in 1685. 14S But these developments occurred after the
first Commencement at Harvard, and thus were not part of the English
record at the time when higher learning began in New England.

VII

On September 23, 1642, Harvard College held her first Commence-
ment and graduated nine young men.149 These young men were more
heavily committed to the Ramistic theory of communication than to
any of the other theories I have discussed. After all, the program of that
first Commencement lists the theses which the graduates were prepared
to defend as a result of their training under Henry Dunster, and the
rhetorical and logical theses on that program are heavily Ramistic. The
twelfth logical thesis, for example, is an invitation to the graduates to
discuss Ramus* three laws: TPraecepta Artium debent esse KCCT&
Tcdvxoq, KocG* a6x6, Koc9* 6Xou Ttpakov." 15° Moreover, in the library
which John Harvard had bequeathed in 1638 to the college subse-
quently named for him, there was a copy of Ramus' Dialecticae Lihri
Duo and Talaeus' Rhetorica—the two works suited before all others to
give those nine first graduates a command of the Ramistic theory of
communication.151 We may be sure that the graduates knew how
Ramus had assigned Invention and Arrangement to dialectic, Style
and Delivery to rhetoric, as part of his program of giving each art what
properly belonged to it under the law of justice. Thus we may also be
sure that the four main terms of Ciceronian rhetoric were familiar to
New England's first college graduates, even if those terms came to them
in the reformed system of Ramus.

But there is a strong likelihood that those terms were also known to
that graduating class from non-Ramistic sources, John Harvard's library
contained the Rhetoricorum Libri Quinque of Georgius TrapezuntiiiSj
a scholar of the fifteenth century; 152 and that work is an excellent and
ample treatise on the five procedures anciently assigned by Cicero to
rhetoric, with definitions of them from the Rhetorica ad Herennium and
De Inventione. Possibly the first graduating class could have learned

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 41

these five procedures directly from Cicero, if trie copy of Cicero's Opera
Omnia in John Harvard's library happened to include the rhetorical
works.153 As for the pre-Ramistic rhetoric of tropes and figures, the
graduates could have mastered that in Henry Peacham's Garden of
Eloquence, a copy of which was in John Harvard's library, possibly as
a relic of his own school days in England.154 John Harvard's library also
contained a copy of the Advancement of Learning,155 and thus the
graduates had access to the new learning and to the rhetorical theory
framed to suit it. It would be strange indeed if by Commencement Day
that year they had not yet read that already famous work. Only the
formulary rhetorics appear not to have been represented in John
Harvard's library, except in such collections of phrases and proverbs as
Grynaeus* Adagia, Draxe's Calliepeia, and Lycosthenes' Apophtheg-
mata.^Q But these rhetorics, of course, would not have assisted dispu-
tants at a college ceremony to examine questions of rhetorical theory.
They would have provided models for practice, and hence would have
been found on a lower level of education than that occupied by the first
graduates of Harvard.

Notes

1. For a representative selection o£ other accounts of English rhetoric in this
period, see the following: E. E. Hale, Jr., "Ideas on Rhetoric in the Sixteenth
Century," PMLA, XVIII (1903), 424-444, R. C. Jebb, "Rhetoric," in The Encyclo-
paedia Rrita>nnica, llth ed.; Donald Lemen Clark, Rhetoric and Poetry in the
Renaissance (New York, 1922); Charles Sears Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric and
"Poetic (to 1400) (New York, 1928); William Phillips Sandford, English Theories
of Public Address, 1530-1828 (The Ohio State University, 1929); Lee Sisson
Hultzen, Aristotle's "Rhetoric' in England to 1600, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Cornell University, 1932; William Garrett Crane, Wit and Rhetoric in the Renais-
sance (New York, 1937); T. W. Baldwin, William Shakspere's Small Latine &
Lesse Greeke (Urbana, 1944), II, 1-68; J. W. H. Atkins, English Literary Criticism:
The Renascence (London, 1947), pp. 66-101.

2. Cicero, De Inventione, 1. 7. 9, trans. H. M. Hubbell (The Loeb Classical
Library, Cambridge, Mass, and London, 1949), pp. 19-21.

3. For indications of Cicero's constant reference to these five major terms, see
De Oratore, 1. 28. 128; 1. 31. 142; 1. 42. 187; 2. 19. 79, 2. 85. 350; see also De
Partitions Oratoria, 1. 3, and Orator, 14. 43-55.

4. Brutus, 6. 25, trans. G. L. Hendrickson (The Loeb Classical Library, Cam-
bridge, Mass, and London, 1939), pp. 35-37.

5. The Latin text and an English translation of this work, formally called
Disputatio de Rhetorica et de Virtutibus Sapientissimi Regis Karli et Albini Magistri,
may be found in Wilbur Samuel Howell, The Rhetoric of Alcuin and Charlemagne
(Princeton, 1941). The Latin text is also found in J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Latina
(Paris, 1844-1864), CI, 919-950, and in Carolus Halm, Rhetores Latini Minores
(Leipzig, 1863), pp. 523-550.

6. See Howell, Rhetoric of Alcuin, pp. 33-61.

7. Ibid., pp. 22-33. For the text of Victor's Ars Rhetorica, see Halm, Rhetores
Latini Minores, pp. 371-448.

8. J. W. H. Atkins, English Literary Criticism: The Medieval Phase (New
York and Cambridge, England, 1943), p. 59.

42 THE HERITAGE

9. The text of the Poetria Nova is found in Edmond Faral, Les Arts Poetiques
du Xlle et du XIII* Stick (Paris, 1924), pp. 197-262; see the same work, pp.
194-197, for an analysis of the Poetria Nova, and pp. 15-33 for a discussion of
Geoffrey of Vinsaui ; see pp. 28-33 for an analysis of the question of the date of the
Poetria Nova, which Faral finally places between 1208 and 1213.

10. Atkins, The Medieval Phase, p. 142.

11. See William Blades, The Biography and Typography of William Caxton,
England's First Printer (London and Strassburg, 1877), pp. 216-219; also E. Gor-
don Duff, Fifteenth Century English Books ([Oxford], 1917), p. 102; also Isak
Colhjn, Kataloge der Inkunabeln der Schwedischen Offentlichen Bihliotheken II.
Katalog der Inkunabeln der Kgl. Universitats-Bibliothek zu Uppsala (Uppsala,
1907), p. 232, also British Museum General Catalogue of Printed Books s. v. "Tra-
versanus (Laurentius Gulielmus) " My present discussion of the Nova Rhctorica is
based upon the Huntington Library's microfilm copy of the St. Albans edition of
1480.

12. This sketch of Traversagni is given here because of the difficulty the reader
might otherwise have in learning something of him. A brief account of him is found
in Blades, pp. 218-219. By far the best accounts, one in Italian and the other in
Latin, are found in Giovanni Vincenzo Verzellino, Delle Meniorie Particolari e
Specialmente Degli Uomini Illustri delta Cittd di Savona, ed. Andrea Astengo
(Savona, 1890), pp. 400-401, 520-521; upon these I have relied almost completely.
See also Lucas Waddmgus, Scriptores Ordinis Minorum, editio novissima (Rome,
1906), p. 158.

13. Frederic Ives Carpenter, Leonard Cox The Arte or Crafte of Rhethonjke A
Reprint Edited with an Introduction, Notes, and Glossarial Index ( Chicago, 1899 ) ,
p. 25.

14. Stephen Hawes, The Pastime of Pleasure, ed. William Edward Mead, Early
English Text Society (London, 1928 [for 1927]); see especially pp. xxix-xxx for a
discussion of the edition of 1509.

15. Ibid , p. 56, line 1357, According to Whitney Wells, "Stephen Hawes and
The Court of Sapience'' The Review of English Studies, VI (1930), 284-294, the
Court influenced Hawes' The Example of Virtue, which in turn provided the pattern
for the Pastime.

16. Pastime, ed. Mead, pp. 30-54 [lines 652-1295].

17. Ibid., p. 52 [lines 1247-1253].

18. P. 25. Carpenter calls Caxton's Mirrour a translation of the French version
of the Speculum Mundi. Actually, the work is a translation of the Image du Monde,
a French encyclopedia perhaps best attributed to Gossotiin, and probably completed
in January, 1245 (O.S.); see Oliver H. Prior, Caocton's Mirrour of the World, Early
English Text Society (London, 1913 [for 1912]), pp. vii-xi,

19. Caxton s Mirrour, ed. Prior, pp. 35-36.

20. Cox, Rhethoryke, ed. Carpenter, p. 41.

21. Ibid., pp. 41-42.

22. Ibid., p. 42.

23. Ibid., p. 42.

24. Ibid., pp. 81, 87.

25. JfetU,p.29.

26. Ibid., p. 91; Carpenter reprints extracts from Melanchthon's Institutiones
Rhetoricae on pp. 91-102.

27. Cicero, Topica, 1. 1-5; 2. 6-7.

28. Cox, Rhethoryke, ed. Carpenter, p. 43.

29. Ibid., pp. 43, 87.

30. Ibid., p. 87.

31. Ibid., pp. 15-16, 21.

32. Russell H. Wagner, "Wilson and His Sources,** Quarterly Journal of Speech,
XV (1929), 530-532.

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC

33. The following table, based upon Wilsons Arte of Rhetorique 1560, ed. G.
H. Mair (Oxford, 1909), and upon Richard Sherry, A Treatise of Schemes and
Tropes ( [London], [1550] ), indicates the chief points of similarity between the two
works :

Topic

"audience of sheepe"
"three maner of stiles"
'figure"
"metaphore"
"abusion"
"metonymia"
"transumption"
'"periphrasis"
''scheme"
'epenthesis"
"syncope"
"proparalepsis"
'apocope"
"extenuatio"
"gradatio"
"dissolutum"

* Wilson illustrates
"diminutio."

Wilson
p. 166
p. 169
p. 170
pp, 172-173
pp 174-175
p. 175
p. 175
pp. 175-176
p. 176
p. 177
p. 177
p. 177
p. 177
pp. 180-181
p. 204
p. 205

°-C5

Sherry
sig. C 2 r °
sig. B 3 r °
sig B 5 r °
sig. C4v°-C5r
sig. C 5 r °
sig. C 5 v
sig. C5r
sig. C 6 v
sig. B 5 r °
sig B 6 r °
sig. B 6 r °
sig. B 6 r °
sig. B 6 r °
sig.D7r°*
sig. D 5 v °
sig. D 6 r °

'extenuatio" with the form used by Sherry to illustrate

34. Wilson, Rhetorique, ed. Mair, p. 6.

35. Ibid., p. 23.

36. Ibid., pp. 86-97.

37. Ibid., pp. 99-116.

38. Ibid., pp. 158-160.

39. Ibid., pp. 162-164.

40. Ibid , p. 160.

41. Ibid., p. 162.

42. This list of editions of Wilson's Rhetorique is based upon the entries in the
Short-Title Catalogue s. v. "Wilson, Sir Thomas."

43. For a discussion of another occurrence of this epigram in the seventeenth
century, see Wilbur Samuel Howell, "Nathaniel Carpenter's Place in the Contro-
versy between Dialectic and Rhetoric," Speech Monographs, I (1934), 20-41.

44. William Pemble, Enchiridion Oratorivm (Oxford, 1633), p. 2.

45. See Cicero, Orator, 14. 43-44, 15. 50-53; 17. 54-61.

46. For the text of this little work, see Halm, Rhetores Latini Minores, pp. 607-
618, also Migne, Patrologia Latina, XC, 175-186.

47. The evidence on this matter is presented in M. L. W. Laistner, A Hand-
List of Bede Manuscripts (Ithaca, 1943), pp. 131-132.

48. See M. L. W. Laistner, "The Library of the Venerable Bede," in Bede his
Life, Times, and Writings, ed A. Hamilton Thompson (Oxford, 1935), p. 241.

49. For Isidore's De Grammatica and De Rhetorica, see Migne, Patrologia
Latina, LXXXII, 73-124, 123-140; for his De Rhetorica alone, see Halm, Rhetores
Latini Minores, pp. 505-522.

50. Halm, p. xv.

51. Laistner, "The Library of the Venerable Bede," in Thompson, p. 241.

52. Bede, Liber de Schematibus et Tropis, ed. Halm, p. 607; translation by the
present author.

53. Laistner, "The Library of the Venerable Bede," in Thompson, pp. 263-266.

54. Atkins, The Medieval Phase, p. 75.

55. An analysis of this work and typical extracts from it are found in Fatal,
Les Arts Poetiques, pp. 321-327.

44 THE HERITAGE

56. Atkins, The Medieval Phase, p. 97.

57. The only modern edition is by Spmdlcr, see The Court of Sapience, rd.
Robert Spindler, Beitrage zur Englischen Philologie, VI (Leipsiz, 1927). Its first
edition is usually listed under the title De Curia Sapientiae or Cuna Sapientiac,
although the work is in English.

58. The Court of Sapience, ed. Spindler, pp, 198-200.

59. Ibid 9 p. 199, line 1911. Buhler thinks these three teims belong to punctua-
tion; he finds their inclusion as a part of rhetoric unusual, although he indicates that
the author of the Court is probably following Isidore and Balbus in includ-
ing them in rhetoric. See Curt Ferdinand Buhler, "The Sowees of the Court ol
Sapience/' Beitrage zur Englischen Philologie, XXIII (Leipzig, 1932), 75. Actually,
however, these terms belong, not to punctuation, but to the theory ol oratorical
style. They may be found in Cicero, Orator, 61. 204-206, 62. 211-214; 66. 223-226;
also Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 9. 4. 22-45, 122-130.

60. Buhler, op, cit,, p. 75, shows that the author of the Court depends also
upon the Laborintus of Evrard F All em and,

61. S^g.Alv°~A2r°.

62. Sig.A2r°.

63. Sig.A4v°.

64. Sig.A5r°.

65. Sig.A6v°.

66. Sig.Blr0.

67. Sig.Blv0.

68. Sig.B5r°.

69. Sig.B5r°.

70. Sig.C4r°-C4v°.

71. My illustration is modeled upon that m Wilson, Rhctuntjuc, ed. Mair, p.
177. For Sherry's less telling illustration, see Treatise of Schemes <!r Tropes,
sig. B5v °.

72. This illustration is from Sherry, sig. C 4 v °.

73. Sig.A5r°.

74. Sig.A6r°.

75. Sig.A8r°-A8v°.

76. The second edition of Sherry's work abandons his carhei distinction be-
tween Schemes and Tropes and substitutes for it the distinction between figures of
grammar and figures of rhetoric, tropes being given a place under the latter head-
ing. The second edition is also a mixture of Latin and English; most topics arc
explained in both languages in the course of the treatise.

77. C£. Sherry ( 1550), sig. F 7 r °-F 8 v °, and Peacham, sig. Q 1 r °-C3 2 r °.

78. Cf. Sherry ( 1555), foi XLI r °~XLI v °, and Peacham, sig. R 3 v °.

79. See John Hoskins, Directions for Speech and Style, ed, Iloyt Hopewcll
Hudson, Princeton Studies in English, XII (Princeton, 1935); see especially pp.
xiv-xv for a discussion of the date of Hoskins* work, and pp. xxvii-xxxxiii for an
examination of the use of the Directions by Jonson, Blount, and Smith,

80. Hoskins, ed. Hudson, p. 3; for a full discussion of the sources of the Direc-
tions, see pp. xxii-xxvii.

8L Mair, pp. 39-63, 66-85, 92-94.

82. Sig.Glr0.

83. Its title and imprint are as follows: A booke called the Foundation of
Rhetorike, because all other partes of Rhetoriko are grounded thereupon, eucry
parte sette forthe in an Oration upon questions, verie profitable to bee knotocn and
redde, Made by Richard Rainolde (London, 1563),

84. See Francis R. Johnson, The Foundation of Rhetorike by Richard Rainolde
with an Introduction (New York: Scholars* Facsimiles and Reprints, 1945), p. xiv.

85. For sketches of these three rhetoricians, sec Dictionary of Greek and Roman
Biography and Mythology, ed. William Smith, s, v, "Aphthonlus of Antioch/* "Hcr-
mogenes 6," and 'Theon, literary 5."

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 45

86. See John Edwin Sandys, A History of Classical Scholarship, 2nd ed. ( Cam-
bridge, England, 1906), I, 318-319, 381.

87. Fol. 1 r °-l v °; see also above, note 43.

88. Fol. 2v°.

89. Fol.2v°~3r0.

90. Fol.3v°-4r°.

91. Fol. 4r°.

92. Fol. 4r°.

93. Fol. 4v°.

94. Fol. 25 r°.

95. The recent works specifically recognizing the forgotten importance of
Ramus are as follows: Hardm Craig, The Enchanted Glass (New York, 1936); Will-
iam Garrett Crane, Wit and Rhetoric in the Renaissance (New York, 1937), Perry
Miller, The New England Mind (New York, 1939); Sister Miriam Joseph, Shake-
speare's Use of the Arts of Language (New York, 1947), Rosemond Tuve, Eliza-
bethan and Metaphysical Imagery* (Chicago, 1947); Donald Lemen Clark, John
Milton at St. Paul's School (New York, 1948).

96. See the Dialectiqve de Pierre de la Ramee (Paris, 1555), pp. 84-85. Ramus'
three laws are derived from Aristotle's discussion of the premises of demonstration
in the Analytica Posteriora, 1.4. For the Greek terms for these laws, see below, p. 57.

97. For a list of the works in which Ramus and his interpreters discuss these
three laws, see Wilbur Samuel Howell, Fenelons Dialogues on Eloquence (Prince-
ton, 1951), pp. 8-9.

98. Roland Macllmaine, The Logike of the moste Excellent Philosopher P.
Ramus Martyr (London, 1574), pp. 7-8.

99. Ibid., pp. 11-12.

100. See Talaeus' prefaces to the first and a later edition of his Rhetorica in
Petri Rami Professoris Regii, 6- Audomari Talaei Collectaneae Praefationes, Epis-
tolae, Orationes (Marburg, 1599), pp. 14-16.

101. See Wilbur Samuel Howell, "Ramus and English Rhetoric: 1574-1681,"
QJS, XXXVII (1951 ), pp. 299-310. A complete account of the English Ramists, with
special attention to Chaderton, Harvey, Temple, John Milton, and many others, will
be found in my forthcoming book on logic and rhetoric in the English Renaissance.

102. Of the five parts of Ciceronian rhetoric, only Memory failed to find a place
in Ramistic dialectic or rhetoric. Ramus believed that Memory was not an explicit
topic for either art to deal with, but, as a faculty of the mind, was assisted and
strengthened by what dialectic had to say about Arrangement. See P. Rami Scho-
larum Dialecticarum, seu Animadversionum in Organum Aristotelis, libri xx, ed.
Joannes Piscator (Frankfurt, 1581), p. 593. See also P. Rami 6- A. Talaei Collec-
taneae Praefationes, p. 15, where Talaeus expresses his view on this subject.

103. For a recent edition of this latter work, and a careful commentary upon it,
see The Arcadian Rhetorike by Abraham Fraunce, ed. Ethel Seaton (Oxford: Pub-
lished for the Luttrell Society by Basil Blackwell, 1950).

104. The first edition bears the following title: Rameae Rhetoricae Libri Dvo.
In vsvm Scholarvm (Oxford, 1597); the second edition (1598) and later ones were
entitled Rhetoricae Libri Duo, Ramus' name being no longer included on the title
page.

105. See Charles Hoole, A New Discovery Of the old Art of Teaching Schoole,
ed. E. T. Campagnac (Liverpool and London, 1913), "The Masters Method/' p.
132.

106. For an English translation of the section on Memory in the Oratoriae Libri
Duo, see Lee Sisson Hultzen, "Charles Butler on Memory," SM, VI (1939), 44-65.

107. Oratoriae Libri Dvo ( Oxford, 1629 ) , sig. L 1 r °. Translation by the present
author.

108. Macllmaine, p. 9.

109. The titles of these three translations are given in full in the present author's
"Ramus and English Rhetoric: 1574-1681," op. cit., p. 306.

46 THE HERITAGE

110. The title page of this work identifies the author as "J- B. Master of the
free-school of Kinfare in Staffordshire." The dedicatory epistle identifies J. B. as
John Barton, as does the epistle "To the Reader."

111. Barton, Art of Bhetorick, p. 1.

112. See Karl R. Wallace, Francis Bacon on Communication 6- Rhetoric or: The
Art of Applying Reason to Imagination for the Better Moving of the Will ( Chapel
Hill, 1943).

113. See R. W. Gibson, Francis Bacon A Bibliography of his Works and of
Baconiana to the year 1750 (Oxford: At the Scrivener Press, 1950), pp. xiv-xv;
72-73, 108-109, 118-124.

114. The Works of Francis Bacon, ed. James Spedding, Robert Leslie Ellis, and
Douglas Denon Heath (Boston, 1860-1864), VI, 117, hereafter cited as Works.

115. Works, VI, 118.

116. Ibid, VI, 118.

117. Ibid., VI, 119.

118. Ibid., VI, 119.

119. Ibid., VI, 119. For an illustration of Ascham's criticism of Ramus, sec Roger
Ascham, The Scholemaster, ed. John E. B. Mayor (London, 1863), pp. 101-102.
For Ramus* tribute to Sturm, see P. Kami 6- A. Talaei Collectaneae Ptaefationes,
Epistolae, Orationes, p. 67.

120. Works, VI, 120.

121. Ibid., VI, 215.

122. Ibid., VI, 260-261.

123. Ibid., VI, 282.

124. Ibid., VI, 169

125. Ibid., VI, 285, 288, 297.

126. Ibid., VI, 261, 268-269.

127. In the English version of the Advancement of Learning, Bacon's terms for
these two aids are "Preparation" and "Suggestion." In the Latin version, the terms
are "Promptuana" and "Topica." Cf. Works, II, 386, and VI, 269,

128. Works, VI, 269-270.

129. Ibid., VI, 270-272.

130. Ibid., VI, 281-282.

131. Ibid., VI, 296.

132. Ibid., VI, 297,

133. Ibid., VI, 297.

134. Ibid., VI, 299.

135. Ibid., VI, 299.

136. Ibid., VI, 298, Bacon says: "And therefore as Plato said elegantly, That
virtue, if she could be seen3 would move great love and affection" This quotation
is from Phaedrus, 250. See Lane Cooper, Plato Phaedrus, Ion, Gorgia$» and %w~
posium, with passages from the Republic and Laws ( London, New York, Toronto,
1938), p. 34. Cooper translates the passage thus: "O what amazing love would
Wisdom cause in us if she sent forth an image of herself that entered the sight, us
the image of Beauty does."

137. Cf. Works, VI, 300, and Phaedrus, 271-272, 277; for a translation of the
Platonic passages, see Cooper, pp. 61, 68.

138. Works, VI, 300.

139. For a discussion of this matter, see the present author's F$nelon*$ Dialogues
on Eloquence, pp. 14-16. For Ramus' discussion of Method, see Dialeetiqve ( 1555),
pp. 120-135.

140. Works, VI, 288.

141. Ibid., VI, 289.

142. Ibid., VI, 289.

143. Ibid., VI, 294; IX, 128, 122; II, 434, 427-428.

144. Ibid., VI, 300.

145. Ibid., VI, 302-303.

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 47

146. Ibid., VI, 131.

147. Thomas Sprat, The History of the Royal-Society of London (London,
1667), pp. 112, 113.

148. This work was first translated into English under the title, Logic; Or, The
Art of Thinking (London, 1685).

149. For a full account of this historic ceremony, see Samuel Eliot Morison, The
Founding of Harvard College (Cambridge, Mass., 1935), pp. 257-262.

150. Morison, p. 439. For a thorough discussion of the influence of Ramus at
Harvard during the seventeenth century, see Miller, The New England Mind, pp.
115-156, 312-330, 493-501.

151. See Alfred C. Potter, "Catalogue of John Harvard's Library/' Publications
of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, XXI (1919), 219-220.

152 Ibid, p. 224!

153. Ibid., p. 225. According to Potter, John Harvard's library contained Cicero's
Operum Omnium tomus 1-3 (Basel, 1528), but I do not know the precise contents
of that particular edition.

154. Ibid., pp. 192, 208.

155. Ibid., p. 198.

156. Ibid., pp. 199, 202, 213.

Rhetorical Theory in Colonial America

WARREN GUTHRIE

Basic to the later development of speech education in America was
the foundation on which that development was built— the rhetorical
theory studied and taught in the colonies. We will examine briefly the
pattern and growth of that rhetorical theory.

The Rhetoric of Style

During the first century of American colonization the educational
doctrine and some of the writings of Peter Ramus a seemed almost to

O s|C^fc^fi««f!Y',1(*;''fVw^'r'«''*V'-.j4

dominate the thinking of the colonists. Ramcan works on grammar and
dialectic were included in John Harvard's bequest to the colonies* first
college. Leonard Hoar, writing to his nephew, Josiah Flynt, a freshman
at Harvard, in 1661, refers to the "Incomparable P. Ramus," and further
adds that Josiah should "make use of the grand Mr. Ramus in Grammar*,
Rhetorique, Logick." 2 Cotton Mather reported that in Harvard "the
Ramean discipline be ... preferred unto the Aristotelian."3 In 1698
thirteen copies of "Rami Logica* were imported into Boston.4 The 1723
catalogue of the Harvard Library lists his Scholia in 3 primas liberates
artes,

Although Ramus wrote no formal rhetoric as a separate treatise, cer-
tain concepts are clear in his writings. His feeling was

since it was concerned only
with ornamenting those ideas^^^^Ttlgic, and already expressed
correctly with the aid of grammar. Much of what was formerly rhetor-
ical doctrine in the classical conception was thus imported into logic or
dialectic. Especially was this true of invention and arrangement.
Rhetoric was left only with style and delivery as Ramean logic became to
a considerable extent a "rhetorical logic**; although it retained the
typical syllogistic doctrine, it added much of the material and point of
view of classical inventio.

Thus, the period of Ramean rhetoric in America, continuing until

RHETORICAL THEORY IN COLONIAL AMERICA

c. 1730, was a period of rhetorical decadence, far from the active ele-
ments of the art which the ancients had considered the very heart of
rhetorical doctrine.
The following will indicate the general scheme of Ramus' rhetoric: 5

simple •

comparative
distributive

dialogistio

• metonymy
•'irony

metaphor
^synecdoche

epizeuxis

anadiplosis

climax

anaphor
epistrophe
epanaiepsis
epanados

paronomasia
polyptoton

C exclamation
correction

I apostrophe
prosopopoeia

( deliberation
I occupation

I permission
I concession

words
sentences

body, head, eyes
arms, hands, fingers
FIG. 1.

Since Ramus himself wrote no rhetoric, it was from a number of
works in the Ramean tradition that his doctrine was circulated in the
colonies. Perhaps the most "official" one— it was highly praised by
Ramus in its preface— was the text written by Omer Talon. His Jfeb,
t^nca^ was one of the works used for the IT^^E^OT" rhetoric at
Harvard College, and the book had considerable circulation in the
colonies. John Harvard's bequest contained a copy,7 and another was

50 THE HERITAGE

in the library of Increase Mather.8 A copy which is bound together with
Ramus's Dialectics and Greek Grammar to make one volume is inscribed
by Dudley Bradstreet with the date 1694. 9 Bradstreet was graduated by
Harvard in 1698. ( One recalls the reference of Mr. Hoar to the ""grand
Mr. Ramus ... in Rhetorique.") Further, Alexander Richardson's Logi-
cian's Schoolmaster, containing much of Talaeus' rhetoric, is known to
have been in the colonies as early as 1635.10

Talaeus7 rhetoric presents a truncated pattern of rhetorical theory at
best. Ramus' definition, "Rhetorica est ars bene dicendi," is followed,
as is his belief that only style and delivery should be discussed. Further,
Talaeus follows Ramus in feeling that all figures of thought should be
treated in logical works. Thus there is left to rhetoric only some twenty-
five tropes and figures. Sixty pages treat of these— the rest of the work
includes generalized comment on voice and gesture. Apparently this
very brevity and narrowness of outlook was an advantage. Certainly
the work had long and influential use in the colonies.

Nonetheless, the most popular presentation of the Ramean doctrines
seems to have been that of William Du^^.^1 His book was a digest of
Talaeus, and thus a third-hand RamuSTbut it was extremely popular in
the colonies. Probably it was a school text as early as 1690,1- and impor-
tations by colonial booksellers were constant. Fifteen copies were im-
ported by Robert Boulter in 1682; ten more by others in the following
year.13 Known to be a grammar school text in 1712, 14 it was listed in the
Harvard course of study in 1726, ir> and it may still have had some use
as late as 1764, since it was then one of the books claimed by students
after a fire at Harvard College in that year.10

It would seem, therefore, that Dugard's work was a standard gram-
mar school textbook during the early eighteenth century, and that it had
fairly extensive use in the colleges as well. Perhaps its popularity in the
schools may be some explanation of its scarcity in private libraries, since
textbooks seem to have been valued as little for permanent possession
then as now.

^^^on^i^^^n^i was first issued in 1650 when Dugard was head-
master of Merchant Taylors school. It follows in all respects the Ramean
principles, treating the figures of speech in some thirty pages, and then
devoting four to delivery.17 The text of Dugard is in catechetical form,
and, as the title advertises, is so arranged that if the questions are
omitted the answers will give a complete foundation in rhetoric for
beginners. A notation from the opening will give some picture of the
method and scope of the book: 18

Quaest. 1. Quid est Rhetorica?

Rhetorica est ars ornate dicendi.

BHETOBICAL THEORY IN COLONIAL AMERICA 51

2. Quot sunt paries Rhetorices?
Partes Rhetorices Elocutio, &

duae sunt: Pronuntiatio

Following the definitions there is a list of the Ramean figures of
speech, each illustrated from Latin literature. Brief as this treatment of
style is, it is detailed in contrast with the very brief and perfunctory
treatment of delivery which follows. The discussion of delivery gives
only a few suggestions concerning the proper "Voice" for the various
parts of an oration, and some general advice on the movement of the
whole body and its parts.

Thus the book features concise definitions of the standard Ramean
tropes and figures, with a minimum of illustrative material. While its
contribution to the development of rhetorical theory must be adjudged
slight, it was compact and doubtless useful to both grammar school and
college students. At any rate, it represents the rhetorical doctrine taught
the colonists before 1730 in its most popular form.

Perhaps thgstrongestc<^^
in the early

plp&SfJCiGEhttd Johaon Vossius' own rhetoric,^Tiad some

circulation in the colonies. Listed as in the Harvard Library in 1724, it
was starred as especially useful for upperclassmen in Yale in 1743. 20

Vossius^rhetoric treated of an art much more closely allied to classi-
cal concepts than did tha .rhetoric of R,amus— a much fuller art than
Ramus was willing to concede. Although Vossius, too, treats mostly of
trope and figure, there is a fairly adequate discussion of invention, dis-
position, and pronunciation as well.

Actually, V^ius^ views, .wex^jnjost popularly presented to the colo-
nies through the works of ThomasB^^^^1 References to the Index
are numerous,22 and all seem to indicate that Farnaby, with Dugard,
was one of the most popular of the rhetoricians influencing early Ameri-
can rhetorical thought.

Farnaby's writings reflect his association with Vossius, and they may
have been influenced by the Jesuit teaching in the classical tradition
which he had experienced as well. His definition of rhetoric is not "ars
ornate dicendi," but "f acultas de unaquaque re dicendi bene, & ad per-
suadenum accomodate." 23

The organization of Farnaby's book also tends toward the classical
tradition. In schematic form, relying largely on bracketed tables,
Farnaby treats of invention, disposition, elocution, and pronunciation,
thus at least mentioning all of the orthodox points of classical rhetoric
except memoria. But when one considers that he treats invention in ten
pages and disposition in nine, it can be seen that the discussions are

52 THE HERITAGE

relatively brief compared with the emphasis given to these same mat-
ters in classical rhetoric. The treatment of elocution or style is more
detailed, the qualities of language being treated, as well as the move-
ment of sentences, periods, and rhythms, and all of the Ramean tropes
and figures.

The second part of the work is a handbook of composition with brief
advice and specimen phrases and forms to use in the various parts of a
theme. Also are included heads for a commonplace book in which quo-
tations may be filed for use in writing and speaking— four pages of
topics running from "Abstinentia, Abusus," to "Vultus, Uxer."

There is frequent reference to classical sources, and on the whole the
book seems vastly superior to Dugard's digest21 It balances the divi-
sions of rhetoric well enough that it would seem to offer, in the hands
of a capable tutor or scholar, a chance for a rhetoric filled with some of
its old-time vitality. Its use in the colonies would seem to indicate,
however, that it was applied much as was Dugard.25 One finds little
evidence to show that the sketchy treatments of invention and arrange-
ment influenced practice in any substantial way. Perhaps the most that
can be said is that it served as a reminder of the full tradition of rhetoric
during a time when the Ramean concept was the more popular.26

A number of other rhetorical works were available to the colonists,
of course. They range from collections of commonplaces or formulae
for the writing of themes or orations, to reference books,27 and their
influence is difficult to assess.

One type of the rhetoric of trope and figure, the so-called "rhetorics
of the scriptures," should be noted. Largely in the Ramean tradition as
to content, this class of rhetorics illustrated the traditional list of figures
with quotations from the Bible, The most popular of this group seems
to have been the work of John Smith.28 Available in America as early
as 1683, the work is frequently referred to in early colonial writings, and
was highly recommended by Samuel Johnson as late as the middle of
the eighteenth century.20 Some idea of the philosophy of the book may
be gained from the introduction:

[Rhetoric] hath two parts, viz.

1. Garnishing of Speech, called Elocution,

2. Garnishing of the manner of utterance, called Pronunciation (which this
treatise is not principally aimed at) .

Elocution, or the garnishing of speech, is the first and principal part of
Rhetorique, whereby the speech itself is beautified and made fine: And this
is either

The fine manner of words called a Trope: or

The fine shape or frame of speech, called a Figure*30

BHETORICAL THEORY IN COLONIAL AMERICA 53

One of the earliest inquiries into the scientific nature of speech was
also in the coloniesj^m^^olittcifi receiving from the Royal Society of
London in 1670 a copy of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^S^'31 The
book was a forerunner 0£^^^^^^^r works jn phonetics, for it
makes a strong attempt to popularize a phonetic alphabet, suggesting
that the use of a universal sound alphabet would simplify all teaching,
and that such an alphabet is absolutely necessary in training the deaf
to speak.

The material is interesting, and undoubtedly significant for the his-
torian in voice science, but the single copy found in the preparation of
this study would not seem to indicate important influence in the
colonies.

Outstanding is the almost complete lack of the classical influence in
early rhetorical teaching in America. Although most of the evidence is
negative, it seems clear that Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian exerted
little influence on the beginnings of American rhetorical theory; simi-
larly; Cox 32 and Wilson, ss frequently hailed by students of English
rhetorical theory, seem to have had no direct influence on the colonies.
No record has been found in any library, public or private, which would
indicate that either of these two works was in the colonies before 1730.

The Classical Tradition

Despite this domination by Ramean rhetoric during the earliest
period in American history, Js^l^

aJaJWU^^ tja^^ ^TJjT

Speaito^ represented almost a

complete departure from Ramean concepts. First known to be in the
colonies in 1716, 35 the Art of Speaking exerted vital influence in the
development of American rhetorical theory.

The 1696 edition is actually two books bound into one— an Art of
Speaking and an Art of Persuasion.

The "4rt Q£ SpeaMng" opens with a discussion of the formation of
the organs of speech. Then, following chapters on grammar and vocabu-
lary, there is detailed consideration of trope and figure. Although this
would seem to be a consideration of those same aspects of rhetoric
which engrossed the Ramean school, the emphasis is cle^ly on a new
concept: although one's &tyl^stald b&J«aaaeiy^
end qf style. Rather, style is always subservient to-tb^eadof&e.spMciL.

Th^second book of th^^

the empSsi^^ section. Dividing the art into five

parts, "Invention of the proper Means, Disposition of these means,
Elocution, Memory and Pronunciation,36 the work shows a clear empha-

54 THE HERITAGE

sis on rhetoric as an active art, concerned with the moving and influenc-
ing of men.

The general treatment is Ciceronian and the entire work is a keystone
in the bridge between the truncated rhetoric earlier prevalent in the
colonies and the full classical approach which was soon to become
dominant. Interestingly enough, the work also offers a foretaste of the
coming emphasis in American education on "belles lettres." Specialized
discussions of the style of the historian and of the poet are provided.
Within a few years belles lettres emerges as a separate discipline— and
eventually leads to the creation of departments of English Language
and Literature in American colleges and universities.

Along with the growing interest in the more complete rhetoric rep-
resented by the Art of Speaking, there were increasing signs of the use
of the classical rhetorics, especially Cicero, in the colonies. Although
Aristotle's works are infrequently mentioned, Cicero's De Oratorc
became one of the most popular works on speech in mid-eighteenth
century America. In the Yale library "6 dupl" copies were available in
1743; the charging lists of the Harvard library from 1762 to 1770 show
its use with constant regularity. Quintilian also was in wide circulation.
A part of the University of Pennsylvania course of study in 1756,37 it
was in the curriculum of Washington College in Maryland in 1783. :1H

In addition to this growing interest in the classical authors, a num-
ber of English works in the classical tradition were imported into the
colonies after 1730. Since most of these works have been discussed in
other studies,39 only brief comment seems required here. Suffice it to
say that eyery important rhetoric published in England during the
eighteenth century found its way into one or more of the large Ameri-
can libraries.

One of these English rhetorics, however, merits special attention,
It^sJcJbnJ^ Called the "most complete

stat«-^^ English tongue," 4l Ward's

System exerted wide influence in America. Dominant in the college field
until 1780, "if "was in general circulation as well Only the works of
Campbell and Blair were to destroy its influence.

Much has been written about Ward's rhetorical theory and its influ-
ence on American speech education,42 and an especially helpful discus-
sion by Douglas Ehninger summarizes this material as follows;

The work clearly has historical importance, and in a very real fashion con-
tributed to the development of modern rhetorical theory. For, though later
writers may have departed from classicism, unless the full scope of the classi-
cal rhetoric* had been firmly established they hardly could have advanced
beyond it. It was Ward's ultimate contribution— and one for which he was
eminently fitted— to sweep away once and for all the last vestiges of the

BHETORICAL THEORY IN COLONIAL AMERICA 55

imean apostasy, and thus help pave the way for the great creative rhetorics
the eighteenth century.43

Rhetoric and Belles Lettres

Along with the growth of the classical tradition in America was a
rresponding increase in interest in the new rhetorics of style which
sre being sent to the colonies. Such works as Anthony Blackwell's
troduction to the Classics, first published in London in 171S,44 and
pied almost without change by Robert Dodsley for The Preceptor,45
sre popular in America very soon after publication. The Preceptor,
r example, was read by Samuel Johnson in 1749,46 and was later used
both Pennsylvania and Harvard.47 Some editions contained only the
ackwell material on style; others reprinted John Mason's Essay on
'ocution, giving that work wide circulation in America.
Other contemporary rhetorics of style known to have been circulated
America include John Stirling's A System of Rhetoric, probably first
iblished in London in 1733, and Thomas Gibbon's Rhetoric; or a view
its principal Tropes and Figures ( London, 1767 ) .
Of ^greatest' importance, in terms of later trends in rhetorical theory,
>wever, is tl^e work on taste and composition written by Henry Home,
»d Kames. Within a few months after publication the three volumes
mprising The Elements of Criticism48 were shipped to Harvard
allege,49 and copies were soon found all through the colonies.
The book i^.gn^effort to investigate systematically, the metaphysical
ixK^pte^^tiheJ|ne arts. Home discards the accepted authoritarian
les for literary composition, and builds instead new rules based on
iman nature. Thus it is a philosophical treatment of taste and criticism
ther than a rhetoric in the sense that that term has been used in this
scussion, but it presages an era to follow.50 In only a few years rheto-
3 and belles lettres were to be decisively linked by Hugh Blair, and
letoricians to become steadily less interested in oratory and public
Idress and more concerned with "English Language and Literature."

The Elocution Movement

Still a third major development in rhetorical theory as it affected
merica was taking place during the latter half of the eighteenth cen-
ry— th^grev^^^^^^l^^S^^ov^^^^ Beginning in England,
here cri&SSm^ had become espec-

ally severe by 1750, special training in "elocution/7 or delivery, was
on widely popular both in England and the United States. John
ason, mentioned above, seems to have been the first writer to justify

56 THE HERITAGE

the use of the term elocution to describe delivery. He offers no explana-
tion for the growth of the "vulgar" use of elocution as applied to
delivery rather than style, although a footnote to his work explains his
usage.51

From almost the beginning the elocutionists were divided into two
schools-the and the 52 The naturalists

believed that^^LC*principles of effective Selivery came from nature
herself, and so their system of elocution was based on large precepts
and on the speaker s understanding of the thoughts read or spoken. In
contrast, the mechanists, while they too wanted the "natural" orator,
felt that true naturalness could only come from a study of the rules
implicit within nature. Thus they offered elaborate systems for acquir-
ing naturalness.

Almost every elocution book written and published in England
seems to have circulated in America, and in terms of library requests
in the colleges, many were more widely read than the more complete
rhetorics we have mentioned. Soon the largest number of rhetorical
works written by Americans were to be on elocution.53

Beginnings of American Rhetoric

Clearly, Aedo^^airt influence jji the development of American

dl§K^^

American rhetoric was slow— its fruits came some years after the period

covered in this essay. Nonetheless, even during the colonial and revolu-
tionary years, some contribution to the theory of rhetorical prose was
made in America.

Just as in England, where many encyclopedic works were written
during the eighteenth century, in the colonies similar volumes were
published. It is difficult to determine the first editions of many of these
works, but The Young Secretary's Guide was in its sixth edition by 1727,
and The American Instructor, or Young Man's Best Companion had a
ninth edition published in Philadelphia in 1748. This work defined
rhetoric as "the Art of Speaking in the most elegant and persuasive
manner; or as my Lord Bacon defines it, the Art of applying and
addressing the Dictates of Reason to the Fancy, and of recommending
them there so as to attract the Will and Desires." 5*

Actually, the |irst complete American rhetoric was that of John
giiti^^^^5 Although Witherspoon was educated in Scotland, and
contemporary Scottish influences are apparent in his writing, the^^J^gc-
to«^ constitute a genuine American rhetoric. Based primarily on classi-
cal rhetoric, Witherspoon interpreted these princij5leH» <&M»IighLof the
p3aflf>s6p1Ky of Ms 6wu time.

RHETORICAL THEORY IN COLONIAL AMERICA 57

Wilson Paul summarizes Witherspoon's contribution to the develop-
ment of speech education in America:

John Witherspoon holds a key position in the transition from the colonial
oratory of the clergymen, to the American oratory of the statesman. His lectures
led the way for the introduction into America of the British eighteenth cen-
tury school of rhetoric furthered by John Quincy Adams. In a nation torn by
war and internal confusion, he carried the banner of theoretical enlighten-
ment and practical improvement of public speaking.56

Despite its nineteenth-century dominance in American speech edu-
cation, no substantial contribution to elocutionary theory was made in
America prior to 1785. In that year Noah Webster published the third
section of his Grammatical Institute of the English Language,57 but its
material on theory was taken largely from Burgh and is only some ten
pages of the two hundred included in the volume. Actually, Webster's
only plea for this study in preference to the Art of Speaking, The Pre-
ceptor, or Scott's Lessons, is that it is an American work.58

Rhetorical theory in colonial America was rhetorical theory in transi-
tion. Ramean in the earliest years, American rhetoric felt the growth of
the classical tradition bringing with it renewed interest in the classics
themselves, and new interest in the contemporary writings of English
rhetoricians. Increased interest in taste and criticism during the period
reflected English thinking in most respects, and in America, as in Eng-
land, the elocution movement was well established by 1785. Although
few contributions of, an original sort have come from colonial America,
the foundation is laid for the productive and creative era ahead.

Notes

1. Pierre de la Ramee, also known by the Latinized Petrus Ramus ( 1515-1572 ) .
One of the most helpful biographies is that by Frank P. Graves, Peter "Ramus and
the Educational Reformation of the Sixteenth Century (New York, 1912).

2. Quoted in Perry Miller and T. H. Johnson, The Puritans (New York, 1938),
pp. 709-710.

3. Cotton Mather, Magnolia Christi Americana (Hartford, 1853), II, p. 21.

4. W. C. Ford, The Boston Book Market, 1679-1700 (Boston, 1917), p. 131.

5. Graves, op. cit., p. 138.

6. Audemari Talaei, Rhetorica, e, P. Rami Regii Professoris Praelectionibus
Observata (Antwerp, 1582).

7. Harvard College Records (MSS), I, p. 261.

8. Julius H. Turtle, "The Libraries of the Mathers," American Antiquarian
Society, New Series, XX, p. 288.

9. Arthur O. Norton, "Harvard Text Books and Reference Books of the 17th
Century," Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, XXVIII (1930-
1933), 424.

10. C. F. and R. Robinson, "Three Early Massachusetts Libraries/* Publ. Col
Soc. Mass., XXVIII (1930-1933), 133.

11. William Dugard ( 1606-1662). Rhetorics Elementa was first issued in 1650^
by 1673 it had passed through seven editions.

58 THE HERITAGE

12. Norton, op. cit.9 p. 366.

13. Ford, op. cit., pp. 126-150.

14. R. F. Seybolt, Public Schools of Colonial Boston (Cambridge, 1935), p. 71.

15. Benjamin Wadsioorth's Book Relating to College Affairs (MS), p. 28. Re-
port of tutors Flynt and Welstead.

16. R. F. Seybolt, "Student Libraries at Harvard, 1763-64," Publ Col Soc.
Mass., XXVIII (1930-1933), 454.

17. William Dugard, Rhetorices Elementa Quaestionibus et Responsionibus
Explicata, Editio Tricesirna ( Londini, 1705 ) .

18. Dugard, op. cit., p. 1.

19. Ger. Jo. Vossii, Elementa Rhetorica Oratoriis Ejusdem Partitionibus Acco-
modata, Inque Usum Scholarum Hollandiae & Westfrisial Emendatus Edita (Lon-
dini, 1739) is the edition now in the Harvard Library.

20. A Catalogue of the Library of Yale College in New-Haven (New London,
1743).

21. Thomas Farnaby (1575P-1647). By 1639, famous as a schoolmaster and
classical scholar, he was in repeated correspondence with Vossius. Index Rhetoricus
was first issued in 1625, and was revised to the Index Rhetoricus et Oratoribus in
1646. The following notes are from the London edition of 1654.

22. Listed for sale by Robert Chisholm in Boston in 1680, other specific refer-
ences to the work appear in 1693, 1702, 1705, and 1721. The Index was a part of
the Harvard course of study in 1726, listed in the Yale catalogue of 1743, and was
among the books claimed lost by Harvard students after the fire of 1764.

23. Farnaby, Index Rhetoricus et Oratonbus, p. 2.

24 Among th$ sources cited by Famaby are Aristotle, Hermogenes, Dionysius,
Longinus, Aphthonius, Cicero, Quintilian, Capella, Trapezuntius, Ramus, L. Vivcs,
Alsted, Caussinus, Vossius, and others. Foster Watson calls Farnaby "one of the
greatest of the schoolmaster editors of the classics," and this contact with the class-
ical authors is obvious ( op. cit., p. 350). The Index is called by Mair in his intro-
duction to Thomas Wilson: "a small but exceedingly well-constructed book." ( Arte
of Rhetorique [Oxford, 1909]), p. xix.

25. The phrasing in the Harvard records was "Dugard's or Farnaby's Rhetoric"
(italics mine), Wadsworth, op. cit.y p. 28.

26. Donald Lemon Clark, Rhetoric and Poetry in the Renaissance (New York,
1922 ) , p. 62, makes the point that Farnaby "gives a fairly proportional treatment of
inuentio, dispositio, elocutio, and actio. Memoria he omits, following here, as else-
where, the sound leadership of Vossius."

27. Typical are John Clarke, Formulae Oratoriae . . . ( London, 1639 ) ; and Nico-
laus Caussinus, De Eloquentia . . , ( London, 1651 ) .

28. The Mysterie of Rhetorique Unveil'd (London, 1665).

29. Samuel Johnson, President of Kings College: His Career and Writings, ed.
Herbert and Carol Schneider, 4 vols. (New York, 1929), I, p. 317.

30. Smith, op. cit.y p. 1.

31. William Holders, The Elements of Speech: an essay of inquiry into the
natural production of letters, with an appendix concerning persons Deaf and Dumb
(London, 1669). The book was sent Winthrop with the thanks of the Society for
certain items which he had sent to London. ("Correspondence of the Founders of
the Royal Society with Governor Winthrop of Connecticut," Massachusetts His-
torical Society Proceedings, 1st series, XVI [1878], 244.)

32. Leonard Cox, Arte or Crafte of Rhetoryke (London, 1524).

33. Thomas Wilson, Arte of Rhetorique (London, 1553).

34. Bernard Lamy was the author of the work published under the following
title: The Art of Speaking Written in French by Messieurs Du Port Royal in Pur-
suance of a Former Treatise, Entitled, The Art of Thinking Rendered into English
(London, 1696).

35. A copy now in the Harvard library is inscribed, "Edward Wigglesworth,
1716." Wigglesworth was graduated by Harvard in 1712, Other specific references

RHETORICAL THEORY IN COLONIAL AMERICA 59

have been found to the work in 1722, 1726, 1742 and 1748, and it seems to have
been considered by Benjamin Franklin for use in his "English School."

36. Lamy, op. cit., "The Art of Persuasion," p. 268.

37. T. H. Montgomery, A History of the University of Pennsylvania from Its
Foundation to AD 1770 (Philadelphia, 1900), pp. 238-239.

38. William Parker, An Account of Washington College in the State of Mary-
land (Philadelphia, 1789), p. 41.

39. See especially Warren Guthrie, "The Development of Rhetorical Theory in
America," Speech Monographs, XIV (1947), 41-47.

40. London, 1759.

41. W. P. Sandford, English Theories of Public Address, 1530-1828 (Columbus,
1928), p. 110.

42. See especially Sandford, op. cit., pp. 107-110; H. F. Harding, "English
Rhetorical Theory, 1750- 1800," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University,
1937, pp. 40-48 and ff.; Guthrie, op. cit., pp. 44-47.

43. Douglas Ehninger, "John Ward and his Rhetoric," Speech Monographs,
XVII (1951), 16.

44. The subtitle is descriptive of the work: An Essay on the Nature of Those
Emphatical and Beautiful Figures Which Give Strength and Ornament to Writing.

45. (London, 1748).

46. Career and Writings, Appendix.

47. Its use at Pennsylvania was along with Longinus and Quintilian. At Harvard
the rhetoric from the Preceptor was an official "reciting book" in 1786, and an
American edition was published "for the use of the University in Cambridge."

48. The first edition was published in London, 1762. Seven editions were pub-
lished before 1790, and an American edition was published in 1796.

49. Harvard College Papers, 1650-1753 (MSS), I, p. 296.

50. For further comment on Kames, see S. Austin Alliborne, A Critical Dic-
tionary of English Literature and British a>nd American Authors (Philadelphia,
1891), I, 870-874.

51. For further discussion of the changes and the meanings of "elocution," "pro-
nuntiatio," etc., see F. W. Haberman, "The Elocution Movement in England,
1750-1785," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1947.

52. Incidentally, each called itself natural. Contemporary argument continues
over just what is "natural" and what is "mechanical." For illustration see recent
writings by Parrish, Van Dragen, Winans, and others in the Quarterly Journal of
Speech.

53. Many studies have been done of the elocution movement. One especially
helpful to the student of the period is Haberman's, op. cit.

54. George Fisher, The Amencan Instructor, p. 302. It may be of interest to
note that the first use of "elocution" to describe delivery that I have found is in
this work. The parts of logic are given as Invention, Judgment, Memory, and "the
Art of Elocution or Delivering."

55. John Witherspoon, Lectures on Moral Philosophy and Eloquence (Wood-
ward's 3rd ed., Philadelphia, 1810). Witherspoon was president of Princeton from
1768 to 1794, and the Lectures were delivered during that time. They were never
planned for publication, but were first published with Witherspoon's collected writ-
ings after his death, and later reprinted as a separate volume.

56. For a complete analysis of Witherspoon, see Wilson B. Paul, "John Wither-
spoon's Theory and Practice of Public Speaking," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Iowa, 1940.

57. An American Selection of Lessons in Reading and Speaking (Hartford,
1785).

58. Webster was especially filled with patriotic fervor and was attempting to
establish a distinctively "American" language. Thus his three volume Grammatical
Institute, and the strongly nationalistic flavor of the selections chosen for Vol. III.

<J Rhetorical Practice in Colonial America

GEORGE V. BOHMAN

Much of higher education in Colonial times was conducted orally,
not only as lectures and recitations, but prescribed as formal original
speeches, as declamations, disputations, commonplacing, and dramatic
dialogues, and as essays and poems read aloud. To understand the place
of rhetoric in such education and the accumulated customs of the first
one hundred forty years of training in speaking in American colleges,
one must consider three major questions: What was the pattern of
public programs and curricular exercises in speaking at the close of
the Revolution? How did this pattern develop in American colleges?
What were the principal values and disadvantages of the most common
forms of rhetorical training?

Pattern of Rhetorical Training at the Close
of the Revolution

For the purposes of this study, rhetorical training may be divided into
( 1 ) the public programs qf the colleges in which student speakers par-
ticipated and (2) the regular requirements and practices in the curric-
ulum and in student clubs and societies.

Speaking in Public College Exercises

By the end of the Revolution, guests were ordinarily invited to almost
any exercise which involved orations and disputations so that students
often had audiences composed of others than students and faculty at
monthly and quarterly exercises, senior examinations, commencements,
and special academic occasions such as the inauguration of a president
or professor, commemorations, and official visits of dignitaries.

In 1786, young John Quincy Adams wrote from Harvard that at the
next commencement "there 'will be delivered two English poems, two
English orations, two Latin orations, a Greek dialogue, three forensic

RHETOKICAL PRACTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA 61

disputes, and an English dialogue between four." 1 At Yale, in 1785,
orations in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, an English oration on eloquence,
a dialogue, syllogistic disputes, and two forensic disputes did the candi-
dates "great Honor with the Literati, & gave universal Satisfaction to
the most respectable & splendid Assembly." 2 At Rhode Island College,
commencement included orations in Greek, Latin, and English, a poem,
and usually both syllogistic and forensic disputes.3 For almost five hours
at the Princeton commencement of 1784, Stiles heard sixteen graduates
of the College of New Jersey deliver orations in English— salutatory,
valedictory, gratulatory, serious, and humorous.4 In typical postwar
commencements, the syllogistic disputations were disappearing and
forensic disputes, English orations, and occasional student "dialogues"
together with some poems and essays read aloud became the fare
which was, as always, well interlarded with reunions over food and
drink.

During an academic year, however, commencen^nt was only the
climax of a series of exhibitions and examuT^onFort^e'ofal prowess
of sQollege students. At least by 1778, Yale concluded the traditional
oral examinations of the senior class with a program of orations. Stiles
described it:

The Senior Tutor thereupon made a very eloquent Latin Speech & presented
the Candidates for the Honors of the College. This Present3- the Pres* in a
Latin Speech accepted, & addressed the Gentlemen Examiners & gave the
latter Liby to return home till Comm.

The exercises after the tutor's speech consisted of a cliosophic oration
in Latin, 11 minutes; a poetical composition in English, 12 minutes; an
English dialogue, 9 minutes; a cliosophic oration in English, 16 min-
utes; disputations in English, 11, 8, and 7 minutes; a valedictory oration
in English, 22 minutes; and an anthem.5

In 1771, President Witherspoon of the College of New Jersey had
introduced prize contests in speaking on the day preceding commence-
ment. These included reading English, Latin, and Greek aloud "with
propriety and grace and being able to answer all questions on its
orthography and grammar," speaking Latin, and pronouncing English
orations. In the last contest, "the preference was determined by ballot,
and all present were permitted to vote who were graduates of this or
any other College." Reporting on the first year of these contests, the
Pennsylvania Chronicle said that "in public speaking the competitors
were numerous, and it was very difficult to decide the pre-eminence."
In 1774, the oratorical prizes were won by Charles Lee and John Rogers,
"each adjudged by seven Gentlemen." A biographer has suggested that
H. H. Brackenridge not only became known as an eloquent undergrad-

62 THE HERITAGE

uate orator at Princeton, but wrote speeches for others, once to be
rewarded by a much needed "handsome suit of clothes and a cocked
hat/' 6

On a variety of other occasions during the academic year, such as
quarter-days, semiannual exhibitions, and sometimes monthly programs,
outsiders were invited to hear disputes, orations, and dialogues pre-
sented by students. Regarding quarter-days at Yale in 1784 and 1785,
Stiles noted: "Present 100 Ladies & Gentlemen, a crouded Assembly"
and "A Full Assembly of Scholars, Gent, & Ladies." A student called
the exercises, which were usually held in the comparatively small col-
lege hall or chapel, "very clever & humorous." In 1780, Stiles described
the program as "anthepi; dialogue; oration; anthem," On December 11,
1782, "die Seniors exhibited the usual academic Entertainments, viz a
Latin oration, an English Dialogue between Gen Warren, Gov Hutchin-
son & Count Pulaski all in the Shades. And English Oration." With his
customary precision, Stiles recorded the lengths of the various items on
some programs:

July 16, 1783. Cliosophic Oration English 11', Forensic Dispute, about
50', English Dialogue, 20', Valedictory Oration in Latin, 26', Address to the
Candidates by Tutor Meigs; he as all others speaking on the stage 16'.

Mar. 9, 1785. Latin Oration, 15', Dialogue S3', English Orations 8'.T

On commemorative occasions, colleges usually included some student
speaking on the programs. At Yale in the 1770's and 1780's, classmates
delivered memorial orations for deceased students. These speeches
compounded large quantities of general philosophy on death and reli-
gion with personal recollections and tributes and long, sentimental
conclusions which were usually adorned with elegiac poetry.8 At Stiles*
inaugural, a "senior Bachelor ascended the Stage & delivered a con-
gratulatory Oration in Latin." 9 Students of the College of William and
Mary sometimes spoke on founders' day. Following a custom at Oxford
and Cambridge when the Tudor sovereigns visited, junior or senior
orators at Harvard pronounced Latin orations before the visiting
governor.10

Speaking in the Curriculum and in Literary
and Debating Societies

* From the use of different forms of speaking in public academic exer-
cises, we gain some insight into the pattern of training and certainly
can observe administrative emphases or the suitability of the different
forms for public use. But the major evidence of the pattern of rhetorical
training may be found in the weekly and yearly requirements of the

RHETOKICAL PRACTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA 63

curriculum and in the extracurricular activities of students in literary
and debating societies.

Although tha^ctmcu^^ the

mid-1780's the Latin and Greek languages ,v^g]^gg^^-~^a] exer.
cises than ever before and by the end of the eighteenth century even
Latin syllogistic disputations had disappeared from the public exercises
in all the colleges but Rhode Island and from practically all training
programs. Logic, formerly a required freshman course which served as
a basis for the syllogistic disputes, had generally become part of the
junior or senior curriculum. Interest in English language and literature
seemed to develop in various directions. The forensic disputes which
replaced the syllogistic were in English. Although the learned lan-
guages were still employed in original speaking, the number of English
orations greatly increased. A revival of interest in declamations and the
institution of contests in reading aloud at the College of New Jersey
probably motivated drill in oral delivery. To some extent, this may indi-
cate awareness of the expanding literature of the elocutionists. At
Harvard, the Overseers had for some years considered dramatic dia-
logues and other experiments in theatrical performances as desirable
oral training. However, emphasis on writing English also was increas-
ing and the appearance of both dialogues and the longer commence-
ment and quarter-day pieces called "essays" on public programs seem
partly an oral increment derived from the new attention to "belles
lettres."

Another change which was far advanced in the 1780's in the colleges
was the abandonment of the class tutor system for more specialized
tutors and professors. However, at Harvard, for example, all tutors were
still expected to teach writing and speaking in addition to a specialty.
Many tutors were young and inexperienced in teaching and by no
means specialists in rhetoric. Only President Witherspoon's lectures on
rhetoric in the postwar period provided notable, expert guidance for
training in speaking.

The pattern of rhetorical instruction continued to consist of weekly
attendance at lectures and exercises by classes. In some colleges, only
the two upper classes participated in disputations and orations. Presi-
dent Madison thus described the requirements at William and Mary:

The public exercises are, 1st, weekly, the Whole University in a con-
venient apartment, one of the Society presiding. Questions are previously pre-
pared and then debated. 2 Monthly, for the students in Law. And annually
when subjects are given to deliver Orations, which, if deserving, are printed.11

At Harvard, John Quincy Adams, who was well impressed with the
training in speaking, wrote:

64 THE HEBJTAGE

. . . speaking in the Chapel, before all the classes, which I shall have to do
in my turn four or five times before we leave college. Such also are the
forensic disputations, one of which we are to have tomorrow. A question is
given out by the tutor in metaphysics, for the whole class to dispute upon.
They alternately affirm or deny the questions, and write, each, two or three
pages for or against, which is read in the Chapel before the tutor, who
finally gives his opinion concerning the question. We have two or three ques-
tions every quarter. That for tomorrow is, whether the immortality of the
human soul is probable from natural reason? It comes in course for me to
affirm, and in this case it makes the task much easier. It so happens that
whatever the question may be, I must support it.12

In Stiles* College Memoranda of 1783, some speaking is indicated for
each class, usually once or at the most twice during the week. Seniors
and juniors disputed Mondays and Tuesdays. Juniors also spoke in
chapel part of Thursday afternoons. Sophomores spoke in chapel Sat-
urday afternoons. The amount of freshman time for speaking is not
clear.13 In general, the number of opportunities for each student to
speak was not large. Although most of the compositions were usually
written out before delivery, the amount of criticism both in written and
oral forms and, indeed, the effort put upon the composition and per-
formance by students are factors not clarified in contemporary accounts.

That there were numerous students who sought more rather than
less opportunities to speak is suggested by the existence of literary and
debating societies in the colleges. Particularly at New Jersey, Yale,
Harvard, Dartmouth, and William and Mary, student members of such
clubs indulged in frequent programs which emphasized all the types of
speaking that were included in the curricular exercises. In addition,
business sessions and extempore disputes as well as some dramatiza-
tions provided even greater variety. Mutual criticism and competition
stimulated improved performances. At William and Mary, the able
George Wythe also sponsored moot courts for would-be lawyers at
which some deliberative as well as strictly legal problems were
debated.14

Such was the nature of student training and activities in speaking
just after the Revolution, The training consisted primarily o£ lectures
and readings in rhetorical theory and related subjects, together with
regut&c' exercises in original speaking, declamation, and disputation
which gave a fW Opportunities awua% jEac oaoh student' jto speak
befot^nis cl^ss ajid tutors and for selected^faidcsats to , spook ^.quarter-
days, examinations, prize ^QBtprts, ,aid cowii^iijcements. A$ purely
extracurricufar"" enterprises,, speaUag ^t«d^'€dbMft|""16urishfea? some-
timesvQii a competitive basis? iti literary and d^Mting* societies. The
quality of aH these aspects of rhetorical training varied considerably
from one college to another. The quality of instruction was apparently

RHETORICAL PRACTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA 65

superior under the aegis of President Witherspoon, George Wythe, and
perhaps under Ezra Stiles and the Yale tutors.

The Development of Rhetorical Training in Early
American Colleges

The manner in which rhetorical training developed may be seen in
three stages. The first was the pattern used at Harvard College in the
seventeenth century. In a second stage, with minor changes, the
Harvard pattern was adopted at Yale and the College of William and
Mary. During the middle decades of the eighteenth century, the Col-
lege of New Jersey, the College of Philadelphia, King's College, Dart-
mouth College, and Rhode Island College instituted programs which
contained many of the same elements, but showed considerable indi-
viduality. In a third stage, more significant changes in the traditional
pattern of Tudor and Continental education resulted from demands for
functional training in the speaking of English which feegan with the
plaiming of the College of Philadelphia at mid-century and permeated
all the colleges.

In 1642, when Harvard set up laws to guide students, it required
declamations, syllogistic disputations, orations, and commonplacing.
All these had been similarly practiced in Britain and Europe. The rules
of syllogistic disputation had changed little since Abelard's day and for
centuries formal declamations and orations had been exhibited by
British university students at commencements and state visits.15 In the
early laws, Harvard undergraduates and bachelors were required to
"repeate Sermons in ye Hall whenever they are called forth," "untill
they have Commonplaced," although the purpose seemed not so much
rhetorical as that "with reverence & Love they may retaine God & his
truths in their minds." Commonplacing was generally scheduled for
nine and ten o'clock Saturday mornings.16 Declamations for first, sec-
ond, and third year men were held at nine and ten on Fridays. At first,
"publique declamations in Latine and Greeke" were planned for each
student monthly, but these were reduced to bimonthly in 1655. The
declamations, contrary to frequent usage, seem generally to have been
original orations and sometimes were delivered in English instead of a
classical language.17 Practice in disputation, supervised by the presi-
dent, occupied an hour for each class on Monday and Tuesday after-
noons. Finally, the whole college heard the president lecture on rheto-
ric from eight to nine Friday mornings and, after declamations, rhetoric
was to be studied the rest of the day. In this plan of 1642, syllogistic
disputations provided practice in logic, but the subjects which were
chosen ranged through all the areas of study. Likewise, declamations

66 THE HERITAGE

or orations represented practice in rhetoric, which for the followers of
Ramus it will be recalled meant the canons of elocutio and pronuntia-
tio. To a marked extent, pedagogy also followed the Ramist procedure
of one subject a day, taught by successive periods of lecture, study,
quiz, and oral applications of what was learned in one or more of the
prescribed rhetorical exercises.18

Disputations and orations constituted the main fare at seventeenth
century commencements. Before as many critical Harvard alumni,
admiring parents, and curious townsfolk as could come, the young men
showed their skills in logic and rhetoric and made their first promising
public impressions upon future colleagues in the ministry and leaders
in both church and politics.10

When the College of William and Mary and Yale College were
founded near the opening of the eighteenth century and even at mid-
century when the College of New Jersey and King's College were
planned, the Harvard pattern (or perhaps more accurately, the tradi-
tional university pattern ) of rhetorical training was used. Thus, at the
beginning of these colleges, the Latin syllogistic disputations, declama-
tions, and orations predominated.20

By mid-century, however, various forces were challenging the domi-
nance of the Latin language, the Ramist views of rhetoric and logic,
and consequently the nature of the rhetorical exercises. Demands for
more functional training in the English language led to moire orations
in English and contributed to the substitution of the forensic fdr the
syllogistic disputation. Under President Finley, the College of New
Jersey required some declamations "to display the various passions, and
exemplify the graces of utterance and gesture." At Yale and other col-
leges, Latin orations appeared on commencement programs until the
end of the period.21 During the last half of the century, the colleges
permitted forensic disputations to become increasingly prominent both
in the classroom exercises and in public exhibitions. The syllogistic
form appeared last at commencements at New Jersey in 1774, Phila-
delphia in 1775, and King's in 1770. The forensic form was used in the
1760's at commencements by all except Dartmouth, Rutgers, and pos-
sibly William and Mary. The forensic gained ground until, prior to the
outbreak of the Revolution, Harvard, Yale, King's, Philadelphia, Rhode
Island College, and the College of New Jersey required forensic dispu-
tation, usually weekly, by the two upper classes. By the 1790's, the syl-
logistic form had practically disappeared from the requirements of
American colleges.22

Benjamin Franklin's Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in
Pennsilvanta (1744) and the Idea of the English School (ca. 1751)
widely publicized a point of view that was gaining favor particularly

RHETORICAL PRACTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA 67

in urban areas. Franklin demanded the training of youth in the Eng-
lish tongue:

Thus instructed, Youth will come out of this School fitted for learning any
Business, Calling, or Profession, except wherein Languages are required; and
tho' unacquainted with any antient or foreign Tongue, they will be masters
of their own, which is more immediate and general Use. . . ,23

Both in the Proposals and the Idea of the English School, he outlined
courses which emphasized speaking and reading skills. He wanted
youth to develop clarity and conciseness, to pronounce distinctly, and
"to form their own Stiles." In his plans, he did not overlook the study of
model speeches, the elements of rhetoric and logic, translations of the
classics, and the latest British literature of Milton, Locke, Addison,
Pope, and Swift or the use of the dictionary; for, he wrote:

It is impossible a Reader should give due Modulation to his Voice, and pro-
nounce properly, unless his understanding goes before his Tongue. . . .
Declarations, repeating Speeches, delivering Orations, . . . [and] Public Dis-
putes warm the Imagination, whet the Industry, and strengthen the Natural
Abilities.24

This broad concept of a program of speech training grew out of
Franklin's wide acquaintance with the needs of professional and busi-
ness men, his interest in contemporary literature and writers, his belief
in the doctrine of good works, and awareness of the special dialectal
problems of the middle colonies. Franklin was a clear spokesman for
the awakened interest in public speaking that was developing out of
the religious revivals, the rise of the lawyer class, and the formation of
business and trade organizations in which he himself had taken the
lead. Political agitation in the ensuing decades intensified this interest
in speaking well.

Although Franklin actually met with only partial and irregular suc-
cess in his effort to establish speaking training primarily in English at
the new college, in other colleges students were demanding exercises in
English and governing boards were not completely unsympathetic. In
October, 1754, the Harvard Board of Overseers selected a committee
"to project some new method to promote oratory." In June, 1755, the
Corporation approved an ingenious plan to substitute dialogues for the
usual declamation. The materials were to be chosen and translated from
standard Latin authors, each student to impersonate a part and then
deliver his part in translation as an oration. In May, 1757, the Corpora-
tion directed the tutors to spend Friday mornings, except when formal
declamations were being held, helping freshmen and sophomores with
their elocution or pronunciation of Latin or English orations, speeches,
or dialogues. In addition, once a month the two senior classes were to

68 THE HERITAGE

hold disputations "in English in the forensic manner without being con-
fined to syllogisms." For ten years the Overseers were concerned with
the enforcement of these major changes by semiannual visitations and
exhibitions.25

Probably the College of New Jersey developed the most ambitious
programs of original orations. According to the Account of 1764, seniors
gave original orations at monthly oration-days and the three other
classes alternately delivered original orations and declamations from
other authors. Apparently, Witherspoon's arrival as president accentu-
ated President Davies' program and the new president soon instituted
the annual prize contests which have been described. In 1772, Wither-
spoon described the curricular requirements in oratory:

During the whole course of their studies, the three younger classes, two
every evening formerly, and now three, because of their increased number,
pronounce an oration, on the stage erected for that purpose in the hall, im-
mediately after prayers, that they may learn, by early habit, presence of mind,
and proper pronunciation and gesture in public speaking. This excellent prac-
tice, which has been kept up almost from the first foundation of the College,
has had the most admirable effects. The senior scholars, every five or six
weeks, pronounce orations of their own composition, to which all persons of
any note in the neighborhood are invited or admitted.26

At King's, the formal laws produced little enlargement of original
speaking. At Philadelphia, with Professor Kinnersley's departure in
1772, oratorical exercises declined.27 At Rhode Island College, both
forensic disputations and English orations appeared on the first com-
mencement programs. In 1774, the two upper classes were required to
attend weekly forensic disputes.28 At Dartmouth, the first commence-
ment of 1771 included one English oration, two orations in Latin, a
syllogistic dispute, but no forensic disputation occurred prior to 1774.
In the laws of 1782, the first Wednesday of each month was devoted to
forensic disputes by seniors.29

As previously noted, another change which occurred as the Ramist
system of logic and rhetoric gave way to classical rhetorical theory and
use of the native tongue was the employment of professorial lecturers
or special tutors in rhetoric and allied fields in a few colleges. Such
experts as William Small at William and Mary, Kinnersley at the College
of Philadelphia, and Witherspoon at the College of New Jersey became
noted lecturers, though it may be doubted that they were superior to
President Dunster and other teacher-presidents of Harvard in the
seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries who personally conducted
the lectures as did Witherspoon in this later period.

Several colleges experimented with dialogues and with poems, essays,

RHETOKICAL PBACTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA 69

and other written compositions of a literary nature which were read
aloud as part of the speaking exercises. These appeared on commence-
ment programs in 1762 at Philadelphia, 1764 at Princeton, 1773 at
Harvard, and at other colleges thereafter. Was direct instruction given
in these exercises? The essays and poems read aloud may have been
part of the training in declamation. Although the Harvard Overseers
blessed the teaching of dramatic dialogues in 1755, the chief evidence
of training in such exercises is in the literary clubs.

At Harvard, Yale, New Jersey, William and Mary, King's, Dartmouth,
and perhaps at the other colleges to a lesser degree, societies were
organized at various times during the eighteenth century, which utilized
disputations, orations, and other types of speaking as major items on
their programs, although religious and social activities and society
libraries were also important incentives for students to join. Many
societies did not outlive the student generation which organized them,
but by mid-century a few organizations achieved a degree of perma-
nence. Critonian at Yale lasted from 1750 to 1772. In 1753, Fellowship
Club, later Linonian, and in 1768 Brothers in Unity were founded. At
William and Mary in 1776 the first chapter of Phi Beta Kappa was
formed. It later organized chapters at other colleges. In the same year,
Rutgers men founded the Athenian society. In the 1780's at Dartmouth,
three major societies, the Social Friends, the United Fraternity, and the
local chapter of Phi Beta Kappa began. At the College of New Jersey,
the earlier Well-Meaning and Plain-Dealing societies were disbanded
in 1768 but the next year the famous American Whig and Cliosophic
societies arose to create a strong competition in varied programs which
included debates, disputations, occasional orations, "Harangues," and
reading aloud. In Clio, "correctors of speaking" and "correctors of com-
position" became regularly elected officers. At King's, Rhode Island
College, and the College of Philadelphia the societies appear to have
been less influential in student life.30

Values of Major Forms of Rhetorical Training

What were the principal values and some of the disadvantages of
the major forms of rhetorical training which were used in the early
American colleges? For purposes of general criticism and evaluation,
we shall consider here only the syllogistic disputation, the forensic dis-
putation, and the oration which persisted as an exercise throughout the
period. The unusual opportunities for more flexible forms of speaking
which the student societies made possible we shall mention but briefly.
David Potter treats of the literary society later in this volume.

THE HEBITAGE

Syllogistic Disputations

In an era in which most students at Harvard were planning to be
ministers, the sifting and defense of "truth" by categorical forms of logic
offered advantages, particularly if audiences were accustomed to the
"plain style" of pulpit address in which concise, didactic, and closely
reasoned discourse was predominant. Aside from some abstract specu-
lation, the purpose of formal logic was not primarily to develop and
project new solutions for problems. As syllogistic disputation was prac-
ticed, the topics or theses were drawn from the curriculum of ethics,
philosophy, politics, theology, grammar, rhetoric, mathematics, and
ancient languages. What the student studied he could formally defend
or attack. If the "truth" seemed to be wanting adequate defense, the
tutor or president-moderator, except at public occasions, would inter-
vene and suggest arguments. Either intervention or a decision on the
"truth" by the moderator could assist the lone respondent if he were
overwhelmed by several opponents.

Despite efforts to insure the victory or at least an adequate defense
of accepted truths, extreme conservatives, such as the Boston minister
Crosswell, charged that graduates were forced to deny theses that were
true and that the "Spirit of Atheism is thereby diffused." In an answer
to CrosswelFs charges, President Holyoke chiefly relied upon the cen-
tury-old tradition behind this type of thesis. He made no formal Aristo-
telian justification of the exercise, but pointed to its use in all Protestant
universities and especially at Harvard under Chauncy, Oakes, and
Mather, who "were as jealous of the Honour of God as you. . . ." 31

It was also argued against the disputes that the logical method was
too intricate and made too many minor distinctions which reduced
argument to "a Parcel Terms" and the "Art of Wrangling." By 1786,
when this form had been abandoned at most colleges, John Quincy
Adams recorded in his Harvard diary:

These syllogistics are very much despised by the scholars, and no attention
seems to be paid to them by the company at Commencement. The scholars
in general think that the government in giving them those parts write on their
foreheads DUNCE in capital letters.

A few days later he wrote his father:

Syllogistic disputes ... are held in detestation by the scholars, and every-
one thinks it a reflection upon his character as a genius and a student to have
a syllogistic; this opinion is the firmer, because the best scholars almost always
have the other parts, There are many disadvantages derive from these syl-
logisms, and I know of only one benefit, which is this. Many scholars would
go through college without studying at all, but would idle away all their

RHETORICAL PRACTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA 71

time, who merely from the horrors of syllogisms begin to study, acquire a
fondness for it, and make a very pretty figure in college. . . ,33

Among the few contemporary accounts of public performances of
students in these disputes, the Pennsylvania Gazette in 1762 commented
that debate at Princeton on a thesis "afforded pleasure to the learned
portion of the audience." Of course Latin was understood only by the
academic community, which somewhat limited the values of exercises
in that language at commencements. John Macpherson complained that
at the College of Philadelphia in 1767, even the Latin was "ill done . . .
ill pronounced, & there was no action, for they spoke from desks/' 33
Actually, if we judge from a few manuscripts and Stiles' diary, the
public disputes of later years comprised only a few concise Latin sen-
tences at a time by each speaker and interest was perforce due either to
parental pride or the keenest intellectual curiosity.

Th^oy^QiHjQris, then, to the syllogistic dispute were numerous. In
contrast to the forensic type of disputation, the syllogistic was overly
concise and brief. It limited logical reasoning to deductive, mostly
categorical syllogisms. Because of the nature of the proofs, the subjects
that were appropriate gave little chance to debate current policies and
to project and test solutions. The structure, in which one respondent
faced a number of opponents tended, many thought, to favor the oppo-
sition. The pattern was extremely stereotyped and allowed no essential
adaptation for the persuasion of the audience. In this respect, the syllo-
gistic dispute remained dialectic and therefore not rhetorical training,
except for the requirement of oral presentation.34

Forensic Disputations

To students familiar with the syllogistic, the forensic dispute offered
much more varied opportunities for using all forms of reasoning and
the whole range of classical rhetorical skills from invention through
delivery. The less concise and usually more familiar English language
prompted fluency; it assured, too, that audiences would understand
most of what was said. For students, the practice of using from two to
four persons on each side in debate and the extension of the total time
to forty-five minutes or more in both public and training exercises made
the preparation and delivery of a forensic a major academic event in
which it was an honor to participate.

The colleges turned to the forensic form just before and during the
period in which students were taking an intense interest in the difficul-
ties between the Colonies and Great Britain, which challenged men to
form opinions and to debate them vigorously. Many subjects continued
to be chosen from the fields of academic controversy in philosophy,

72 THE HERITAGE

rhetoric., languages, and literature. As the Revolution approached, how-
ever, students chose a large proportion of questions from the issues
which sprang up between the mother country and the Colonies or from
the domestic reforms advocated by the Whigs. Proposition and ques-
tions such as these illustrate the trend:

It is lawful for every man, and in many cases his indispensable duty, to
hazard his life in the defence of his civil liberty. (1768)

The Non-Importation Agreement reflects a Glory on the American Mer-
chants, and was a noble Exertion of Self-Denial and Public Spirit. (1770)

The legality of enslaving Africans.

Whether the Press ought to be free?

Whether Females ought to be admitted to public Civil Government?

Whether Representatives are to act according to their own Minds or the
Minds of their Constituents? 35

At the first commencement of Rhode Island College in 1769, James
Varnum and William Williams debated "Whether the British America
can, under her present circumstances, with good policy effect to become
an independent state." 3G In 1773 at Harvard, Theodore Parsons and
Eliphalet Pearson clashed over whether African slavery was according
to the law of nature. Rather than the formal arguments, the careful
persuasive approaches of the opposing speakers in this debate com-
manded respect. The first speaker against slavery apparently assumed
considerable opposition to his position. So, with little argument and
slight attention to African slaves, he talked at some length about the
views of the audience on liberty in general. Then, to combat such a
conciliatory approach, the second speaker in the debate asked the
audience to suspend its sentiments and examine the arguments objec-
tively. He said: "That Liberty is sweet to all, I freely own; but . . . the
doctrine of happiness of the whole . . . requires some subordination."
With this he began a long formal argument that slavery in general
reflected a law of nature which was peculiarly applicable to Africans
in this country.37

After the Revolution, Stiles recorded such timely questions for dispu-
tation as the mode of taxation for paying continental debts, private vs.
public education, universal toleration of religions, the established
church, Vermont statehood, a standing army, increased power for Con-
gress, the Society of the Cincinnati, and imprisonment for debt38

Contemporary comment reflected less interest in the subjects used
than in the "spirit and eloquence" of the speaking. The Pennsylvania
Gazette praised the English forensic dispute at Princeton in 1760 on the
proposition that "the Elegance of the Orations consists in the Words
being Consonant to the Sense" by saying that "The Respondent, Mr.
Saml Blair, acquitted himself with universal applause in the elegant

RHETORICAL PRACTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA 73

Composition and Delivery of his Defence; and his Opponent answered
with Humor and Pertinency." In 1767 at Philadelphia, Macpherson
remarked: "We were then entertained by an English dispute, opened
by Tighlman (who alone it is said composed his own piece) who was
opposed by Johnson. Barkson wound up & bore the bell as the phrase
is r 39

By the end of the period the forensic dispute was adversely Criticized
9BJ2&J^#tfs which have always demanded careful supervision and
restraint. Macpherson noted that in disputes, as in oratory, some stu-
dents were unwilling to make adequate preparation and eitBef "hrfrio
obtain help to prepare a speech or spoke with superficial knowledge.
The second fault was that, especially in the literary and debating socie-
ties, personal abuse5 exaggerated argumentum ad absurdum, and
ridicule were too often rif e<

On the whole, however, tljgjiorensic dispute was better adapted to
the variety of secular as well as religious careers toward which students
of the latter half of the eighteenth century might look. Besides the
pulpit, the courtroom, the legislative hall, the town meeting, and the
stump claimed as much flexibility, knowledge of current issues, and
skillful speaking as the best students could learn. Their intense interest
and the approval of administrations and of many leading alumni testify
to the wide acceptance of jthe forensic dispute as a means of training
leader^ in the Colonies and the infant nation.

Orations

Orators were men of considerable honor in the colleges. Presumably,
the curricular program prepared every man to deliver original speeches
as well as declamations from other authors. In the earlier years, when
classes were small, every student might get a chance to dispute or
deliver an oration in a public exercise and the best were selected for
the salutatory or valedictory orations at commencement or for a com-
plimentary oration at the visit of a governor or the inauguration of a
president. Later, when the orators were elected by the senior class, as
at Harvard, "there was a great deal of intriguing carried on." 40 Whether
by the class or the professors, the choice was announced some weeks
before the oration was to be delivered. Benjamin Wadsworth's Book
recorded notices sent between March 14 and April 15 for late June
commencements. At Princeton, Witherspoon required that speeches be
submitted to him for correction and approval at least four weeks before
the exercises.

If orations generally were of the lengths of those preserved or whose
times were recorded, they ranged from about seven to twenty-five

74 THE HEBITACE

minutes long. Some early Latin orations may have been longer.41 Many
of the publicly delivered orations must have been developed and first
delivered in the routine classroom exercises. Yet, some young men
found the task o£ composition onerous. In a letter to William Paterson,
an alumnus, student Edward Graham wrote:

I was told to entreat your assistance in my favor, to prepare me for my last
public speaking in college the next commencement. On all occasions hitherto
I have made a trial of my own abilities with a view to my own improve-
ment. . . .

The present Senior class in college of which I am a member consists of
about thirty, amongst whom are several excellent speakers who I suppose will
take all possible methods to make an appearance in the fall to the greatest
advantage— if it were supposed that to do this they relied only upon their own
Study and ingenuity I should consider it my interest and exert my powers to
be on a level with them. But as it is known that they depend for the most
part on the assistance of their friends of greater experience and abilities for
their commencement orations there is but little encouragement for one alone
to strive. . . .

Graham must have asked for a complete text from Paterson, for he
added: "If so if I should receive one time enough to commit well to
memory and exercise myself well in it, it will do." 42

Contemporary accounts provide some general criticism of the pub-
licly delivered orations. Holyoke referred to a series of Harvard valedic-
tory orations as "tolerable/' performed "pretty well/' "indifferently both
as to Speech & Action/' and "well." The Pennsylvania Gazette charac-
terized the delivery of orations at King's College, May 18, 1773 as "ele-
gant," "delivered with great propriety/' "with more propriety of pro-
nunciation and gracefulness of action/' "elegant diction . . . received
with much applause/' and "with earnestness and warmth, which never
fail to interest the passions of the hearer." In 1762, the same newspaper
had chiefly referred to elegance, graceful ease, and propriety of the
orations at the commencement of the College of New Jersey. Two years
earlier, the Gazette had mentioned the "very sprightly and entertaining
Manner" in which Benjamin Rush delivered "an ingenious English
harangue in Praise of Oratory." At 1768? at Princeton, William Paterson
remarked that "although the bulk of the young men made a handsom
appearance, yet some really fell short of the expectations of their
friends." Regarding the commencement of the College of Philadelphia
in 1767, John Macpherson wrote:

After prayer, Bankson pronounced a Salutatory Oration. This was one of
the best performances of the day. The Latin was well articulated, & but for
the tone that ran through the whole pronunciation, it was very compleat. . . .
White, a master of arts then pronounced an Oration. I forbear to give any
character of this, you will I dare say see one in the papers; but (if as usual)
it will be far above the merit of the piece.

RHETORICAL PRACTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA 75

In the 1780's, Chastellux heard the orations at Philadelphia and com-
mented: "Some excellent declamations were made in Latin and in Eng-
lish, by no means inferior to those I have heard at Oxford and Cam-
bridge. Their compositions in general were elegant, and their elocution
easy, dignified, and manly. . . ." Chiefly, however, Chastellux was im-
pressed that "whatever the subject, the great cause of liberty and their
country was never lost sight of, nor their abhorrence of the tyranny of
Great Britain." 43

Obviously, despite regulations to encourage early preparation and
careful practice in the delivery of orations, their quality varied widely.
At times, perhaps more in some colleges and under some professors
and tutors than others, Jhe:^^

flowery, ,j^^^^^M^^h^^^y. The compliments which were tradi-
tional in salutatory, gratulatory, and valedictory orations required some
passages with these characteristics. The exhibitory nature of commence-
ments and other public occasions and, particularly the stimulus which
the successful end of the Revolution gave orators of the 1780's to praise
victory, liberty, military heroes, and the future of the United States,
were added factors which encouraged an exaggerated style. A Dart-
mouth orator professed, in keeping with his reading of the less sophistic
classic writers, that he had "not affected a florid style, or the Beauties
of Composition, but to communicate his Sentiments with the greatest
Simplicity and Plainness." Yet he included such passages as these:

Just to address you on this final day, that like a veil shuts up our most
pleasant scenes.

But to sum up all, education softens the rough and savage passions of the
mind that are wild by nature, smoothes the boisterous and foaming seas of
unbridled lust and ambition, melts the obdurate and unrelenting heart into
compassion; adds sweetness to the bands of society; extends and brightens
the rational faculties of the human soul . . . even next to that which is heav-
enly and divine.

Now to conclude in a word. How happy will be the consequences should
America, while shaded with the balmy wings of freedom, cultivate and pro-
mote education. For a long time she has been drenched with scenes of blood.
But do not the lamps of night begin to disappear before Aurora's blush? The
auspicious morn begins to gild the western hills with its golden rays, and
cheer the hearts of freedom's sons with the rising beams of a peaceful day?
Therefore, O Americans! let your hands be strong, your influence to cultivate
education; may your troubles come to a speedy end, and this land be the
grand theatre, where the blessed Redeemer shall make peculiar displays of
this latter day glory.44

The salutatory oration by Sylvanus Ripley, Dartmouth 1771, con-
tained similar figures, alliteration, and parallelisms, arid was written in
a strained, amplified, exalted style, as these passages suggest:

76 THE HERITAGE

As the welcome Approach of friendly Citizens to the cavern'd Hermit; or
gradual dawn of rosy Morning to the bewilder'd Traveller; so is this pleasant
arrival of the Venerable Literate to this solitary Seat of the Muses.

But without Learning, Benevolence looks like a Diamond rough in the
mind that can't display itself to Advantage.

Early in the Infancy of Time Learning began to dawn in the Eastern
World, & afterwards gradually shone around, to charm the Circle of the in-
habited world with new-born Rays.

No sooner is the Happy Stranger arriv'd on their Coasts, than Oratory
breaks forth from the shades of Ignorance & the Charms of Poetry and polite
Literature grace the barren mount of Parnassus.45

From the standpoint of a critic who is familiar with the long history
of rhetoric since Corax, Ripley's style will be considered exaggerated
and fulsome, his preparation probably as hasty and insufficient as that
of many students through the centuries. Ripley's Dartmouth mentors
doubtless applauded his style as close to the accepted taste for this
kind of commencement oration. In perspective, Ripley's style is simply
less mature, less smooth, less tempered by experience than the labored,
published effort of Dartmouth's later son, Webster, in the peroration
of the "Reply to Hayne."

In seeking to teach the major rhetorical skills, the Colonial college
probably found no more effective form than the oration. Rameans and
Aristotelians alike seemed to regard it highly. Under diligent tutors and
professors, orations were closely supervised during preparation, revised
to improve content, arrangement, and style, and polished in delivery.
They were spoken in whatever languages prevailed in academic life.
In these ongioal speeches, students were generally fr$e to discuss cur-
rent pu^Jloas well as a^ardeffilc" issues and to project their thinking itnd
talking in directions which they could follow afterwards in the ministry,
law, and politics. These advantages, coupled with the usefulness of
oifertitifts in competitions and their appeal to public audiences, account
for the continued popularity of the oratorical form in the curriculum,
thelftkrary* societies, and for public acadeihic occasions.

Literary and Debating Societies

Primarily, the^Jfterary and debating societies which flourished, though
often briefly and sporaclicalTy Ih/tlxe American cdTKgeS' 'i&^^^^^^t
thffe-quarters of the eighteenth century, offered additional opportuni-
ties to dlsp^fe, d^elaJta, ami ddi¥^ original speeches. Competition
both within the societies and between rivals on the same campus
whetted the enthusiasm of speakers. To improve the quality of speak-

RHETORICAL PRACTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA 77

ing, largely for more effective competition it seems, "correctors of
speaking" and "correctors of composition" were sometimes elected. In
later years, dialogues, dramatic performances, and the reading aloud
of essays and narrations were also included in society programs.

The chief additions to the kinds of rhetorical fare which the societies
offered college students, however, were extempore and impromptu
speeches. Nowhere else in the colleges was there occasion for such vigor-
ous parliamentary practice as in the business sessions of the societies.
Then, besides the scheduled disputations, which tended to be a series
of carefully planned and written speeches with comparatively little
adaptation to immediately preceding arguments, particularly when the
participants were less experienced members, societies occasionally held
extempore disputes in which the rather scant evidence indicates more
lively give-and-take.46 In the 1790's, at the College of New Jersey,
society debates were of a parliamentary nature, in which each member
was permitted a speech with no time limit in whatever order he chose
to speak, with a possibility of second and third speeches of not more than
ten minutes.47

Hence, generally, it may be argued that although social interests and
intersociety rivalry seem to have dominated the societies, they stimu-
lated much more speaking than the curriculum provided and gave some
impetus to extemporaneous and impromptu debate and to parliamen-
tary practice.48

Notes

1. Writings, ed. W. C. Ford (New York, 1913), I, 25. He added to the letter a
request for Blair's Lectures in octavo.

2. Ezra Stiles, Literary Diary (New York, 1901), III, 184.

3. R. A. Guild, History of Brown University (Providence, 1867), pp. 348 ff.

4. Stiles, Diary, III, 119.

5. Stiles, Diary, III, 11, March 13, 1782. Cf. poem by Joel Barlow, A Prospect
•for Peace (New Haven, 1778), 12pp., delivered at the Yale examination of that
year.

6. John MacLean, History of the College of 'New Jersey ( Philadelphia, 1877 ) ,
I, 312, 363; Pennsylvania Gazette, October 13, 1773; Pennsylvania Journal, Octo-
ber 12, 1774; C. M. Newlin, Life and Writings of H. H. Brackenridge (Princeton,
1932), p. 9.

7. Stiles, Diary, II, 438; III, 11, 80, 130. "A Young Man s Journal," New Haven
Colony Historical Society Proceedings, IV, entry of March 10, 1784. Stiles, Diary,
III, 11, March 13, 1782 and other dates noted, with some variations in punctuation
to clarify the items.

8. E.g., published pamphlets by Samuel Nott (1778), Samuel Austin (1782),
Joseph Demson (1782), and Reuben Hitchcock (1786).

9. Stiles, Diary, II, 277.

10. Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, XVI, 565, 711; Josiah
Quincy, History of Harvard University (Boston, 1860), II, 87 ff, 155; MacLean,
op. cit.y I, 215-216.

11. William and Mary Quarterly, 2d series, VIII, 295, August 1, 1780.

78 THE HERITAGE

12. Writings, I, 21.

13. Stiles, Diary, III, 99.

14. Ota Thomas, "The Theory and Practice of Disputation at Yale, Harvard, and
Dartmouth, from 1750 to 1800," unpublished Ph D. dissertation, State University
of Iowa, 1941; S. E. Morison, Three Centuries of Harvard (Cambridge, 1936), pp.
138 ff, 180; WMQ, IV, 213-260, "The Original Records of the Phi Beta Kappa
Society"; Stiles, Diary, II, 527, Apiil 4, 1781; WMQ, VI, 183.

15. Karl R. Wallace, "Rhetorical Exercises in Early Tudor Education," Quar-
terly Journal of Speech, XXII (1936), 44-51; Colyer Meriwether, Our Colonial
Curriculum 1607-1776 (Washington, 1907), pp. 226 ff; S. E. Morison, Harvard
College in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, 1936), I, 141 ff.

16. PCSM, XV, 25, Laws of 1642-46; ibid., XXXI, 333, laws of 1655, Morison,
Harvard College, I, 141.

17. Morison, Harvard College, I, 179-185; including contrasting texts by Michael
Wigglesworth and Joseph Belcher.

18. Morison, Harvard College, I, 140-141. Barrett Wendell, Cotton Mather,
Puritan Priest (Cambridge, 1926), p. 36, quoting Paterna; "For my Declamations
I ordinarily took some Article of Natural Philosophy for my subjects, by which con-
trivances I did kill two biids with one Stone/' David Potter, Debating in, the Colo-
nial Chartered Colleges (New York, 1944), p. 5n. Quincy, op. cit,, II, Appendix
xv, lists mulcts or fines for failure to perform rhetorical exercises : not exceeding 1/6
for not declaiming, 1/6 for bachelors neglecting disputes, 3/ for respondents neg-
lecting. These weie modified after 1761.

19. Morison, Harvard College, I, 465 ff.

20. Cf. Elaine Pagel, "The Theory and Practice of Disputation at Princeton,
Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania from 1750 to 1800," unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1943, pp. 35-36 and 150 ff. Forensic
disputations appear to have been about equally used from the first at King's. Evi-
dence is poor on early practices at William and Mary. Minor changes occurred in
the Harvard laws of 1723.

21. MacLean, op. cit., I, 266-267, quoting Finley's "An Account of the College
of New Jersey" (1764), pp. 23-30.

22. Cf. studies of Potter, Pagcl, and Thomas as well as the histories of the early
colleges.

23. Writings, ed. A. H. Smyth (New York, 1905-1907), III, 29.

24. Ibid., II, 386-396.

25. Quincy, op. cit., II, 124, 127, 129, 132. The laws of 1767 earned similar
provisions. "Harvard College Records," PCSM, XXXI, 352-353, section VII: "All
the Classes shall attend with their respective Tutors on Saturday Mornings for
Instruction in Theology, Elocution, Composition, Rhetoric & Belles Lettres/* The
semiannual exhibitions before the Overseers were abandoned in 1781 for quarterly
exercises before the "President, Professors, Tutors."

26. MacLean, op. cit., I, 362.

27. Pagel, op. cit., pp. 88-108.

28. Guild, op. cit., p. 345; Potter, op. cit., p. 36.

29. IWd.,p.36.

30. Potter, op. cit., pp. 66-67; Pagel, op. cit., pp. 108-125.

31. Testimony Against the Prophaneness of Some of the Public Disputes (Bos-
ton, 1760).

32. Potter, op. cit., p. 29, from the "Student Diary of John Quincy Adams" in
Henry Adams, Historical Essays, p. 113, May 23, 1786, and J. Q. Adams, Writings,
I, 24, June 14, 1786.

33. MacLean, op. cit., pp. 253 ff; Pennsylvania Gazette, October 21, 1762;
Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXIII, 53.

34. For these criticisms in greater detail, see Potter, pp. 29-32, and the disser-
tations of Ota Thomas and Elaine Pagel, cited above.

35. Cf. Potter, op. cit.f pp. 43-47, for these and other samples of forensic theses.

RHETORICAL PRACTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA 79

36. Rhode Island Historical Society Collections, VII, 281-288.

37. Pamphlet (Boston, 1773). The text, pp. 3-48, suggests either a long debate
or speeches amplified for publication.

38. Cf. Stiles, Diary, for various dates, 1779-1785.

39. MacLean, op. cit., I, 216-217; PMHB, XXIII, 53.

40. J. Q. Adams, Writings, I, 27.

41. See also Stiles* timing of commencements.

42. W. J. Mills, Glimpses of Colonial Society (Philadelphia, 1903), pp. 156-159.
Also note an essay promised in a letter of 1769 to John Davenport at Princeton, and
a letter of Paterson to Aaron Burr, 1772: "Be pleased to accept of the inclosed Essay
on Dancing; if you pitch upon it as the subject of your next discourse, it may per-
haps furnish you with a few hints, and enable you to compose it with more facility
and dispatch." American Antiquarian Society Proceedings, XXIX, 54.

43. Holyoke Diaries 1709-1856 (Salem, 1911), June 27, 1766; June 29, 1765;
July 5, 1767; July 1, 1768. Pennsylvania Gazette, May 26, 1773, October 21, 1762;
MacLean, op. cit., I, 253 ff; Mills, op. cit., p. 60, November 16, 1768; Chastellux,
Travels in North America (London, 1787), I, 229. Congress, the French Minister,
and Pennsylvania officials were also present. PMHB, XXIII, 53, November 17, 1767.

44. An Oration on Early Education (Dresden, 1779). Spoken by Samuel Wood,
who later helped prepare Daniel Webster for Dartmouth College.

45. Manuscript, Dartmouth College Archives, August 28, 1771.

46. Cf. Yale Fellowship Club, 1766; Linonia at Yale, 1783, Phi Beta Kappa,
Dartmouth, 1781; and Potter, op. cit., pp. 71-74.

47. Pagel, op. cit., pp. 115-117.

48. Yale, Dartmouth, College of New Jersey, and Harvard had developed the
stronger societies by the end of this period.

T: English Sources of Rhetorical Theory in
Nineteenth-Century America

CLARENCE W. EDNEY

English theory thoroughly permeated instruction in public address
in American colleges and universities during the nineteenth century.
And the English treatises that dominated the field were those of John
Ward, George Campbell, Hugh Blair, and Richard Whately.1 This
paper, therefore, will review and compare the theories of these giants
of the English scene, and, in order to present a complete picture of
trends, will introduce comment concerning other not-to-be-neglected
English writers.

General Perspective

Whereas the Ramean rhetoric of style and delivery had been favored
in early American instruction,2 the English theories that controlled the
classrooms in the nineteenth century were classical in basic tendency.
However, tfie intellectual controversies and achievements of the early
modern age modified classical rhetoric in directions that cut deeply into
American thought.

Ward's System of Oratory

John WajxTs, 3 §ystem of Oratory ^ is ^^ rep/esentative of one cujrcent of
English theory that is exclusively classical in tendency.4 Published
posthumously in 1759, it is an 863 page, two volume, simplified, repeti-
tion of classical tenets. Pol theory, Wardle^ns JHQ§f heavily upon Quin-
tilian; i or ffiustetion, he depends very largely wpOti Cfetex tie cfevotes
one lecture to a review of the origin and development of rhetoric, one
to the nature of oratory, one to the divisions of oratory, eight to inven-
tion, eight to disposition, twenty-seven to elocution ( including three on
the subject of history), five to pronunciation, and three to the things

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 81

(nature, art, and practice) necessary to develop skill in oratory. Possibly
George Campbell was thinking of the System when he complained that
theories of rhetoric published up to his time were only the observations
of classical writers "put into a modish dress and new arrangement"

Ward gathers in the thinking of both Cicero and Quintilian when he
defines oratory as "the art of speaking well upon any subject in order
to persuade." 5 To speak well, the orator must speak justly, method-
ically, floridly, and copiously.6 And, although the principal aim of ora-
tory is to persuade, the speaker often attempts, as subordinate objective,
to delight and conciliate.7 He limits the parts of oratory to invention,
disposition, elocution, and pronunciation, including memory under pro-
nunciation "to which it seems most properly to relate." 8

Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric and Lectures on
Pulpit Eloquence

To George Campbell 9 we are indebted for two treatises, his Philoso-
phy of Rhetdric^ published in 1776, an^ his work on homiletics pub-
lished posthumously (1807) as the last twelve chapters of Lectures on
Systematic Theology and Pulpit Eloquence. Possibly because it de-
mands rigorous scholarship, the Philosophy was less popular in Ameri-
can colleges than Blair's Lectures.10 The work on pulpit eloquence went
through many editions, but we have no exact account of places or fre-
quency of use in America.

Both treatises must be studied in order to obtain a complete view of
the theories advanced by this Presbyterian divine.11 They are written
with different aims in view. The ^Philosophy attempts to ascertain "the
radical principles of that art, whose object itis, by , the .use o£ language,
to operate upon tho soul of the hearer." 12 It is perhaps one of the most
penetrating examinations of the psychological, epistemological, philo-
sophical, and literary bases of rhetoric that has been produced in the
long and proud history of the discipline, and was evaluated by Richard
Whately as a work that is "incomparably superior" to that of Dr. Blair,
"not only in depth of thought and ingenious original research, but also
in practical utility to the student/' 13 The volume on homiletics is, essen-
tially, a handbook for the preacher who, with little training in public
address, must officiate acceptably in the pulpit. Neither book attempts
to provide "a full' institute of rhetoric."

Campbell's definition of eloquence as "that art or talent, whereby the
speech is adapted to produce, in the hearer the great end which the
speaker has, or at least ought to have principally in view" is stated in
almost identical terminology in both works. So is his explanation of the
ends of eloquence, which departs so definitely from classical concept

82 THE HERITAGE

and has had such permanent impact upon modern theories of rhetoric.

From this essential starting point, each treatise moves in the direc-
tion of its particular objective. The Philosophy penetrates deeply into
the nature of wit, humoi*, and ridicule, into the sources of evidence, into
a consideration of audience, into an examination of the differences in
orations delivered at the bar, in the senate, and from the pulpit, and
into the nature of language and its use in rhetoric. The Lectures are
devoted primarily to lessons in pronunciation, elocution, and disposi-
tion.14 And, because he believes that disposition is intimately connected
with the intent of a speech, Campbell gives us, in the Lectures, a much
more complete explanation of the ends of eloquence than is found in
the Philosophy. Any given speech has, as its ultimate aim, one of four
objectives: to enlighten the understanding, to please the imagination,
to move the passions, or to influence the will. The understanding is
reached either by a speech to inf orni or a speech to convince. The imagi-
nation is stimulated by discourse which exhibits "a lively and beautiful
representation of a suitable object." The passions are moved by address
which stimulates emotion or desire. The will is influenced by speech
which concurrently moves the passions and directs these passions by
means of rational appeals.

Unquestionably Campbell's analysis was influenced by the practical,
epistemological, inductive character of seventeenth and eighteenth cen-
tury English philosophical thought. Undoubtedly the inspiration for
his orientation of rhetoric toward a "science of human nature" and his
itemization of the ends of eloquence is to be found in works of Lord
Kames,15 Francis Bacon,16 John Locke,17 and David Hume.18

Blair's Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres

In 1783, after almost a quarter-century of oral presentation, Hugh
Blair published his smooth-flowing Le$ttire$ on Rhetoric and Belles
Lettres.^ Instantly popular in American colleges, the treatise is repre-
sentative of the belles l^ttristjc-critical current of English theory.20

In his preface, Blair expresses the hope that the Lectures will provide
a comprehensive work for those who "are studying to cultivate their
taste, to form their style, or to prepare themselves for publie speaking
or, opposition.** 21 In line with these aims, he provides the reader with
four disquisitions on taste, two on the rise and progress of language,
two on the structure of language, fifteen on style, eleven on eloquence,
one each on historical and philosophical writing, eight on poetry, and
one each on tragedy and comedy.

In typical pedagogical fashion, Blair reviews the benefits of study
of rhetoric and bettes lettres. The individual who desires to improve his

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 83

eloquence is told that the rules of rhetoric will "assist genius/' strengthen
accuracy of thought, correct slovenly expression, and help in "distin-
guishing false ornament from true." The individual who does not intend
to speak in public is told that the principles of belles lettres teach us

"tnjujrmVft ar^ fp hlflm^Ljma'fh jnrigmnni- " Attention to this "speculative

science" improves our knowledge of human nature, exercises our rea-
son without tiring it, provides employment for leisure time, refreshes the
mind after the "labor of abstract study," raises the mind "above the
attachments of sense," increases sensibility "to all of the tender and
humane passions," weakens the more violent and fierce emotions, "dis-
poses the heart to virtue," and furnishes material for "fashionable topics
of discourse." 22

In spite of this deflection of rhetoric in the direction of fine literature,
Blair holds to a solid and defensible philosophy of the subject. If these
lectures have any merit, he says, "it will consist in an endeavor to substi-
tute the application of these principles in the place of artificial and
scholastic rhetoric; in an endeavor to explode false ornament, to direct
attention more towards substance than show, to recommend good sense
as the foundation of all good composition, and simplicity as essential to
all true ornament." 23 Moreover, he follows Campbell's lead in expand-
ing the scope of rhetoric. "To be truly eloquent is to speak to the pur-
pose. . . . Whenever a man speaks or writes, he is supposed, as a rational
being, to have some end in view; either to inform, or to amuse, or to
persuade, or, in some other way to act upon his fellow creatures." The
lowest degree of eloquence is that which aims only at pleasing the
hearers. A somewhat higher degree of eloquence is that through which
the speaker attempts, not only to please, but to inform, to instruct, to
convince. The highest degree of eloquence is that used to influence
conduct and persuade to action.24

Whatelys Elements of Logic and Essentials of Rhetoric

For tl|e purpose of this study we are primarily concerned with two of
Richard Whately's ninety-seven published works, his Elements of Logic
(1826) and his Elements of Rhetoric (1828).25 Undoubtedly Whately
considered them companion volumes; each contains numerous cross
references to the other, and the Rhetoric, in the section on refutation,
refers the reader to the Logic for a discussion of fallacies.

oflo^

<**ii|wwi!i«fi«E«»w8ii< * *" O o J. o

a^^^Giic respectability /But he was deeply indebted to Edward Copies-
ton, his undergraduate tutor at Oriel College, Oxford, for many of his
ideas about it. This indebtedness he freely acknowledges in the dedica-

84 THE HEBITACE

tory and prefatoiy pages of the Logic before providing the reader in
Book I with an "Analytical Outline of the Science/' in Book II with a
"Synthetical Compendium" of principles, in Book III with an explana-
tion "of fallacies/' in Book IV with a "Dissertation on the Province of
Reasoning/' and, in the Appendix, with one of the very best tracts ever
written "On Certain Terms Which Are Peculiarly Liable to be Used
Ambiguously." 2G

Although probably less renowned for his Rhetoric than for his Logic,
Whately is largely responsible for initiating that trend of theory which
'moved rapidly in the direction of a rhetoric of argumentation and
debate. His stated objective is to treat of "argumentative composition,
generally and exclusively? However, his "middle ground" becomes
quite broad and he produces a text which interprets rhetoric as the art
of speaking to instruct, to convince, and to persuade. Part I is devoted
to a consideration "Of the Address to the Understanding, With a View
to Produce Conviction (Including Instruction)/' Part II is concerned
with an examination "Of The Address to the Will, or Persuasion/' Part
III considers "Style/' and Part IV philosophizes upon "Elocution or
Delivery."

Whately felt a need to mitigate prejudice against instruction in
rhetoric and, in the course of his effort, offers some excellent advice
concerning the teaching of ^speech. Reasoning that prejudice stems from
observation of the cramped efforts of learners, he recommends four
policies: first, that topics for speaking be drawn from the studies in which
the learner is engaged, from the content of conversations to which the
student has listened with interest, and from the student's every-day
activities; secondly, that the rules inculcated be based upon broad
philosophical principles; third, that sedulous care be taken in correc-
tion; and fourth, that the teacher offer continuous encouragement.
Strangely, he considers debating societies more harmful than beneficial
because "students are apt, when prematurely hurried into a habit of
fluent elocution, to retain through life a careless facility of pouring forth
ill-digested thoughts in well-turned phrases, and an aversion to cautious
reflection." 27

There is no mistaking the fact that the Rhetoric is the product of a
theologian who was much involved in the religious controversy of his
time. In it one finds not only indications of a practical view of Chris-
tianity but the mark of a divine who would fight the Rationalists with
their own weaponsfTnus the Rhetoric., at times, seems to be overly con-
cerned with techniques of defense. And, undoubtedly, Whately's ex-
haustive treatment of "testimony" and his originality in supplying us
with the theory of "presumption" and "burden of proof grew 0ut of
his unceasing effort to clarify and defend Christian evidences.2

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 85

haps, too, this devotion not only prompted but gave rigidity to his
strange theory of induction.

Priestley's Course of Lectures on Oratory and
Criticism

Joseph Pjiestley's A Course of Lectures on Oratory and Criticism 29
is mentioned because it is an interesting attempt to utilize David
Hartley's doctrine of the association of ideas, and because some
comment seems necessary in order to complete the picture of currents
of theory in later English rhetoric. The work had little impact upon
American instruction. And, although it must not be ignored, it obviously
is the product of restless intellectual energy rather than penetrating
study of the theory of rhetoric.

The salient characteristics of this work, first published in 1781, are
three: the first is the reduction of all composition to two kinds, narration
and argumentation; the second is the belief that the principal objective
of every speaker is to "inform the judgment, and thereby direct the
practice" (attempts to please and to affect are admissible only when
"subservient to that design"); and the third is the treatment of all aspects
of rhetoric, aside from limited discussions of topica, techniques of am-
plification, and methods of arrangement, under a broad concept of style.

Such, then, are the general points of view of the chief English rhetori-
cians who were well known to American students and teachers of rheto-
ric in the nineteenth century. We shall now compare their views of
four of the five divisions of classical rhetoric. Although Ward was the
only writer among this group of English rhetoricians who discussed his
theory under the classical divisions of inuentio, dispositio, elocutio, and
pronunciato, it seems wise, for the sake of clarity, to utilize this tradi-
tional partition in this paper. Because major attention to the classical
division of memoria virtually disappeared in the writings of these
theorists, it will be noticed only in passing.

Invention

All of these writers* by implication or by direct statement, insist that
broad*Sowiedge and thorough command of subject are tha^Qwces of
th|Tmaterials of invention. Blair calls for a "proper acquaintance with
the rest of tlie liberal arts." Campbell suggests that "everything that
serves to improve knowledge, discernment, and good sense" is valuable
to the orator. Ward declares that "great learning and extensive knowl-
edge" as well as "a lively imagination" and "readiness of thought" are
of great help in invention. Whately implies a similar point of view.30

86 THE HEKITAGE

Logical Proof

Without exception, the English theorists agree about the close rela-
tionship of rhetoric and logic. Whately declares that rhetoric is an
"off-shoot of logic/' and Campbell insists that eloquence is "but a par-
ticular application of the logician's art." Ward protests the Ramean
tendency to divorce invention and disposition from rhetoric, and states
emphatically that both rhetoric and logic teach us to reason from
causes, effects, circumstances, etc., even though there are, between the
two, differences in aim as well as in kinds of proofs used. Blair declares
that reason and argument are the "foundations of eloquence." 31

When theories are compared, however, striking differences appear in
concept as well as in approach to the problem of disco vering~logical
proofs.

Although Ward is sceptical of the worth of topoi, he suggests that
they may lessen the difficulty of finding arguments. He divides them
into internal and external topics, corresponding to Aristotle's division
of proofs into artificial and inartificial. From Quintilian's list,3- he
selects sixteen internal commonplaces. He reduces the Roman rhetori-
cian's list of external commonplaces to three forms of "human testimony
(writings, witnesses, and contracts), and adds, as a major division,
divine testimony (which is "incontestable").33 Also, he follows Quin-
tilian 34 to the letter in explaining the "conjectural" state, the "definitive"
state, and the state of "quality."

In line with classical theory, Ward distinguishes between the discov-
ery of arguments and argumentation. Consequently, the "forms of rea-
soning used by orators" are considered in that section of his System
devoted to dispositio. They are syllogism, enthymeme, induction, and
example. And it is here that he displays his greatest inadequacy. His ex-
planation of syllogism is weak and incomplete. He believes, erroneously
that the only way that enthymeme differs from syllogism is in the omis-
sion of one of the premises.35 His illustrations of "induction" and his
explanation of "example" lead one to feel that, in both cases, he is
thinking in terms of literal analogy. When he states, finally, that "the
whole induction or example has the nature of an enthymeme," we rec-
ognize that, had Ward been a more penetrating thinker, his theory of
argumentation might have resembled that of Richard Whately.

Blair discounts completely the usefulness of the classical equipment
for finding arguments. And, because he doubts if any kind of explana-
tion will be helpful to the student, detours this particular aspect of the
theory of rhetoric.

CampbeE, in presenting his readers with a discussion of "logical
truth" remains consistent with his desire to trace the jnind's "principal

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 87

channels of perception and action, as near as possible, to their source/'
He does not pretend to advance a theory of logic as such. Perhaps, as
Whately charges, he misunderstood the real nature and function of
logic. Influenced by a century of English philosophical thought, he was
very much concerned about the sources of knowledge. It is worth
mentioning that the epistemological approach to logical proof was not
unique to Campbell. Quintilian, many centuries earlier, had pointed out
that "unless there be something which is true, or what appears to be
true, and from which support may be gained for what is doubtful,
there will be no grounds on which we can prove anything." 36

In a bold statement that disavows the whole theory of perception
through "ideas" (which lies at the heart of Hume's scepticism), and
aligns his thinking with that of Thomas Reid,37 Campbell declares that
"logical truth" consists in "the conformity of our conceptions to their
archetypes in the nature of things." This conformity of concept and
object is perceived either "intuitively" upon bare attention or "deduc-
tively" by comparing related concepts. We arrive at "first truths" intui-
tively and immediately through intellection, consciousness, and common
sense.38 We know immediately through "intellection" the truth of such
propositions as "the whole is greater than the part." We know im-
mediately through "consciousness" the truth of the fact that we exist,
feel, think, and so forth. We know immediately through "common
sense" the truth of statements like "whatever has a beginning has a
cause." We arrive at other truths by a process of reasoning in which we
compare intuitive truth with related perceptions. These truths may be
either demonstrative (certain) or moral (probable).39 Demonstrative
truth is derived from the "invariable properties or relations of general
ideas." Moral truth (or variant degrees of likelihood) is obtained by
comparing intuitive truth with the evidence of experience, analogy, and
testimony.40

In his explanation of "experience," Campbell provides us not only
with a description of the essential preliminary condition to scientific
induction which Mill calls "unscientific practice" but also with a rela-
tively advanced view of causation in the theory of induction. And,
although he accepts the constancy of nature's laws as the fundamental
principle of induction, Campbell does not, as did Whately, jump to the
conclusion that every induction is a syllogism in which the suppressed
major premise is a proposition that declares the uniformity of nature.41
Both Campbell and Whately attempt to apply the mathematics of
probability to the weighing of evidence and argument in rhetoric.

he says,
should be completed and conclusions should be reached before argu-

88 THE HERITAGE

mentative composition starts; and the first step in the process of compo-
sition, although not necessarily so in final argumentation, is to lay down
these conclusions or propositions.42

Whereas Campbell represents an extreme position which holds that
the syllogism is useless, Whately speaks for the opposite view which
declares that the syllogism is the universal type of inference. It is cus-
tomary, he says, "to argue in the enthymematic form, and to call . . . the
expressed premise of the enthymeme, the argument by which the con-
clusion is proved/' 43

Arguments are those propositions which serve as premises. When
classified in regard to the "relation of the subject-matter of the premise
to that of the conclusion" they fall into two major groups: first, those
that can be used "to account for the fact or principle maintained, sup-
posing its truth granted;" and second, "those that cannot be so used." 44

The first class isjaj^piaa In saying that "if the

Cause be fully sufficient, and no impediments intervene, the Effect in
question follows certainly; and the nearer we approach to this, the
stronger the argument/' and also in stating that "this is the kind of
argument which produces (when short of absolute certainty) that spe-
cies of the Probable which is usually called the Plausible/' Whately
appears to include all causal argument, probable and necessary.45 And,
although he improves upon these criteria for testing causal reasoning in
his analysis of the fallacy of non causa pro causa, the Archbishop of
Dublin is to be criticized for ignoring the discussions of plurality of
causes and combinations of causes and conditions which were available
to him in the works of Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Watts, and Mill.

4E£iS^
[t is ratio cognescendi or reason for knowing.46 From some signs, we

2an infer either the certain or probable "cause" of an effect or phenom-
snon. From others, we can infer some "condition" without which the
sffect could not exist. Argument from testimony is a species of sign. We
reason that, because testimony exists, the fact attested is true (the truth
Df what is attested is a "condition" of the testimony having been given) .
When testimony is to a matter of fact,4'7 we evaluate it by questioning
the honesty of the witness, his accuracy, and his means of getting infor-
mation. When the testimony is to a matter of opinion,418 it is necessary
to enquire as to the ability of the individual to form a judgment Testi-
mony is strengthened if it is inimical to the known prejudices of the
attestor, if it is corroborated by many witnesses (assuming that the
testimony is original and not hearsay), if it comes through incidental
hints or oblique allusions and is therefore undesigned, if it leads to a
conclusion that the attestor would be unwilling to admit, if it agrees

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 89

with generally known statements which remain uncontradicted, if, in
case of concurrent testimony, there has been no opportunity for concert
and especially when rivalry or hostility exists between the attestors, and
if it is improbable that the thing attested could have been imagined or
invented.49

Example, the second division of sign, includes arguments usually
designated by the terms induction, experience, and analogy. In argu-
ments such as these "we consider one or more, known, individual
objects or instances, of a certain class, as a fair sample, in respect of
some point or other of that class; and, consequently draw an inference
from them respecting either the whole class, or other, less known, indi-
viduals of it." The term "induction" is applied to arguments that stop
short at the general conclusion. Inductions can be stated in syllogistic
form because, in all cases, there exists a major premise which assumes
"that the instance or instances induced are sufficient to authorize the
conclusion." 50 The term "experience" applies to the premises from
which we argue and not to the conclusion we reach.51 The term
"analogy" is used for argument in which we reason from one thing to
another thing, both of which are similar in "relation."1 Whately here
seems to be confined to figurative analogy, and seems to have over-
looked the implications of Campbell's thinking on the subject.

There is "no distinct class of refutatory argument;" 52 arguments
become such because they are used either to prove the opposite of a
proposition or to over-throw the arguments by which the proposition
has been supported. In the first instance, the argument is only "acci-
dentally refutatory" in that it can be developed in the absence of oppos-
ing argument. In the second instance, the argument consists of exposure
of fallacies.53

In every fallacy, Whately writes, the conclusion either does or does
not follow from the premises. Where conclusions do not follow, the
fault is in the reasoning, and these, therefore, are called logical falla-
cies. They are subdivided into (1) purely logical fallacies which exhibit
their fallaciousness by the bare form of the expression without respect
for the meaning of terms, and (2) semi-logical fallacies which are
"cases of ambiguous middle term except its non-distribution." Purely
logical fallacies would include (a) undistributed middle, (6) illicit
process, (c) negative premises or affirmative conclusion from a negative
premise and vice versa, and (d) more than three terms. Semi-logical
fallacies result from (a) ambiguities in language or (b) ambiguities in
context.

Where the conclusion does follow from the premises, the fallacies are
called nonlogical, or material fallacies. Of these there are two kinds:
those in which the premises are such as ought not to have been assumed,

90 THE HERITAGE

and those in which the conclusion is not the one required. Nonlogical
fallacies, in which the premise is unduly assumed, has two species,
petitio principii, "in which one of the Premises either is manifestly the
same in sense with the Conclusion, or is actually proved from it," and
non causa, or false cause, in which there is "undue assumption, of a
Premise that is not equivalent to, or dependent on, the Conclusion."
Nonlogical fallacies in which the conclusion is irrelevant (ignoratio
elenchi) break down into the fallacy of objections, the fallacy of shift-
ing ground, the fallacy of using complex general terms, the fallacy of
appeals to the passions (argumentum ad hominem, ad verecundiam,
and so forth), and the fallacy of proving a part and suppressing the rest
of the question.54

Whately warns his readers that, in reasoning in the realm of probabili-
ties, there are likely to be sound arguments and valid objections on both
sides of a proposition and, consequently, it is possible that solid argu-
ments may be advanced against one that is true. Therefore, it is wise to
concede the strength of objections that are unanswerable. Weak
advocates can do harm to a cause for the reason that they are easily
answered, leaving the impression that all arguments which could have
been advanced have been destroyed. For the same reason, it is danger-
ous to advance more arguments than can be maintained. Psycho-
logically, an elaborate attack upon arguments is likely to enhance their
importance or to result in audience refusal of the refutatory remarks.
Furthermore, it is wise to confine arguments to those that "are directly
accessible to the persons addressed," and sometimes it becomes neces-
sary to trace an erroneous opinion directly to its source.

Emotional Proof

Among the English rhetoricians, -Q^£g£C^£^^. is the only theorist
wK^rtttettlpts a thorough and systematic examination of the pathetic.
Why, he asks, does the pathetic, "which consists chiefly in exhibitions of
human misery," hold our attention? What is the cause of "that pleasure
which we receive from objects or representations that excite pity and
other painful feelings?" After examining and expressing dissatisfaction
with the hypotheses of Abbe Du Bos, Fontenelle, Hume, and Hobbes,
he presents his own, and condttdes that the pkasnre In p%*^iiaes
"from its own natur$.jQEjrom the nature of those passions of which it is
Compounded and not fooni ai^I!^ The

observations that lead him to this conclusion are, first, that all oflEe

^epteasanTlTove, joy,
""

hope; gratitude, pride) ,q,nd the painful ""( hafreS, grief, fear, anger,
shame); second, that there is "an attraction or association anpucm the

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 91

passions"; third, that "pain of every kind generally makes a deeper
impression on -the imagination than pleasure does, and is longer re-
tained by memory"; fourth, that, if pleasant passions predominate
among a "group" of both pleasant and painful passions, there arises
often "a greater and more durable pleasure to the mind, than would
result from these, if alone and unmixed"; fifth, that "under the name
pity may be included all the emotions excited by tragedy"; and sixth,
that "pity is not a simple passion, but a group of passions united by
association, and as it were blended, by centering in the same object." 55

Whately accepts Dugald Stewart's division of the passions into "appe-
tites, desires, and affections," to which he adds "self-love" and "con-
science." These he calls "the active principles of our nature." Ward is
satisfied to speak of "commotions of the mind." 56

Our authors are in complete agreement as to the place of emotional
appeal in persuasive discourse. Ward insists that it be used only to
influence men to act "agreeably to reason." Campbell, Blair, and
Whately admit that there can be no persuasion without appeal to the
passions but insist that, rhetorically and ethically, conviction of the
understanding comes first.57

Talent in the use of emotional proof, says Blair, is not gained from a
philosophical knowledge of the passions but rather from "a certain
strong and happy sensibility of mind." He recommends that the speaker
consider whether the subject will admit the pathetic, seize the critical
moment that is favorable to emotion in whatever part of the discourse
it occurs, paint the object of the passion in the most striking and natural
manner, be moved himself, he bold and ardent, use simple and unaf-
fected language, beware of digressions and comparisons, beware of too
much reasoning, and never attempt to prolong the pathetic too far.58

No passion, declares Whately, is aroused by thinking about it per sey
but "by thinking about, and attending to, such objects that are calcu-
lated to awaken it." He suggests that the speaker dwell upon the
circumstances of the case at hand, use comparison, and either openly
display the feeling to be conveyed or appear laboring to suppress it. In
no case should address to the passions be introduced as such. If it seems
unlikely that the occasion or object at hand will excite the desired emo-
tion, the speaker may turn attention to that which will raise the feeling;
once aroused, the passion may be turned in the direction required.59

Campbell explains that circumstances "chiefly instrumental" in oper-
ating on the passions are (1) probability, (2) plausibility, (3) impor-
tance, (4) proximity of time, (5) connection of place, (6) relation to
the persons concerned, and (7) interest in the circumstances. An unfav-
orable passion is calmed by annihilating or diminishing the object which
raised it, or by exciting some other passion that will overcome it.60

92 THE HERITAGE

On the surface, Campbell, Blair, and Whately seem to dichotomize
"rea'son** and "emotion." None of them, however, seems to think in terms
of a strict division of human powers. Unquestionably, their attempt to
analyze and clarify the aims of public address, as well as the limitations
of language, led them to speak but not necessarily to think in terms of
separate human "powers," Campbell, at least, would have been aware
of Locke's warning that this way of speaking "has misled many into a
confused notion of so many distinct agents in us." G1

Ethical Proof

English concepts of ethical proof are, encompassed in Ward's explana-
tion' of it as "the means by which the speaker conciliates the minds of
his hearers, gains their affection, and recommends both himself and
what he says to their good opinion and esteem." G2 Ward, Campbell,
and Blair lean toward Quintilian's philosophy that the speaker must be
a good man in order to recommend himself to an audience. Whately
leans in the opposite direction and declares, specifically, that he is
talking about "the impression produced in the minds of the hearers"
rather than the real character of the speaker.63

Whately follows Aristotle in stating that the character to be estab-
lished is that of good principle, good sense, and good will64 Ward
insists that the speaker display the qualities of wisdom, integrity,
benevolence, and modesty.65 The speaker will more easily gain assent
if he appears to be convinced of the truth of his position,60 and if he
appears to be of the same party as the hearers.67 The speaker should
express wise, amiable, and generous sentiments.68 He should avoid in-
consistency,69 direct self -commendation,70 and a display of oratorical
skill.71 To allay prejudice, the speaker should turn the emotion in an-
other direction or excite a contrary state of mind.72 Also he should make
concessions, defer appropriately to the judgment of his hearers, and
request that they attend exclusively to the subject.73

Disposition

In English theory, much of the judgment, selection, and adaptation
assigned to dispositio by classical writers is siphoned into other divi-
sions of rhetoric or is concentrated under a consideration of audience.
In general, that which is left to di&positio is decision concerning the
arrangement, adaptation, and proportionment of the parts of a speech.74

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 93

Arrangement

In general, and with only slight differences from theory to theory, the
English rhetoricians choose to follow Cicero's six-part division of a
speech into introduction, narration, proposition, confirmation, refuta-
tioh, and conclusion. Probably the only important variation from typical
instruction is Campbell's stipulation that the conclusion of every ser-
mon should be persuasive in nature.

Audience

Probably the distinguishing characteristic of English instruction con-
cerning adaptation to audience is location in the rhetorical systems.
Campbell gives a special section of his Philosophy to a consideration
of the audience, but the bulk of Whately's comment falls within his
discussion of persuasion. Blair scatters his relatively few and general
comments throughout his treatise. Ward spreads his ideas concerning
adaptation into three places in his System, into his explanation of the
use of topoi in commendatory and deliberative speeches, into his lec-
tures on the passions, and into his consideration of ethical proof.

The most careful analysis of audience is found in Campbell's Philoso-
phy. Drawing upon Aristotle, he declares that hearers must be con-
sidered both "as men in general" and "as men in particular'' or, in other
words, as men having certain general similarities and as men having
certain specific differences. Men in general are endowed with under-
standing, imagination, memory, and passions. In adapting discourse to
understanding, the speaker is concerned about the clearness and sim-
plicity of his proofs, his reasoning, and his language. In order to stimu-
late imagination, he makes sure that his ideas are vivacious, beautiful,
sublime, or novel. In accommodating discourse to memory, he attempts
to facilitate the "association of ideas/' In attempting to touch the pas-
sions, he "communicates lively and glowing ideas of the object." Men
in particular are different in intellectual attainment, behavior, habit,
and occupation. Also they are different from group to group.75 All
aspects of the discourse must be adapted to these specific differences.

Our other theorists contribute nothing that is not encompassed in
Campbell's analysis. Whately, however, reminds his readers that,
although the speaker uses "all precautions not inconsistent with his
object" to avoid displeasing his hearers, 'Tie who would claim highest
rank as an orator . . . must be the one who is the most successful, not in
gaining popular applause, but in carrying his point, whatever it be." 76

94 THE HERITAGE

Elocution

"Elocution directs us to suit both the words and the expressions of a
discourse to the nature of the subject/' explains John Ward. "General
elocution" is concerned with "elegance" (purity and perspicuity), "com-
position" (turn and harmony of periods), and "dignity" (tropes and
figures) of language. "Particular elocution" makes use of the constitu-
ents of general elocution to form the low, middle, and sublime styles. To
become master of a good style an orator must be endowed with a vigor-
ous mind, a lively fancy, good judgment, and a strong memory. And
style must be adapted to the subject, the time, the place, the hearers,
and "other circumstances." 7r

"General elocution," as explained by Ward, conforms closely with
Cicero's discussion of "embellishment of language." His division of "par-
ticular elocution" is definitely a repetition of Cicero's discussion of three
"forms" or "complexions" of eloquence.78 This comparison helps to
clarify the various referents of the word "style" in the works of our
English rhetoricians. Blair uses the word to encompass both of Cicero's
( and Ward's ) divisions of elocution. Campbell and Whately abandon
Cicero's "forms" of eloquence, and limit their thinking to what Ward
calls "general elocution" and Cicero labels "embellishment."

Hugh Blair defines style as "the peculiar manner in which a man
expresses his conceptions, by means of language." And he divides this
aspect of rhetoric into "perspicuity" and "ornament." His explanation of
perspicuity is typical: words must be pure, proper, and precise; sen-
tence structure must be clear, exact, unified, strong, and harmonious.
He warns that ornament is liable to abuse, but provides a full catalog
of figurative language as well as an exhaustive analysis of twelve differ-
ent forms or complexions of eloquence. To this, he appends suggestions
for the attainment of good style. These suggestions are perhaps Blair's
most important contribution to the subject. Study the subject, he says,
and "think closely" about it. Become acquainted with the style of the
best authors, but remember that "servile imitation" is dangerous. Obtain
frequent practice in composing, and remember that style must be
adapted to both the subject and the capacity of the hearers. Above all,
do not allow attention to style to take precedence over attention to
thought79

Campbell's treatment of elocution seems to have been influenced by
four factors; first, English philosophical thought concerning the rela-
tionship of language and knowledge; second, observation of the difficul-
ties in communication brought on by provincial dialects; third, eight-
eenth-century concern about the meaning of words; and fourth,
Quintilian's elaborate discussion of style.

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 95

As interested as he was in the sources of knowledge, it would have
been inconceivable for Campbell to neglect the nature, use, and signi-
fication of language as it relates to knowledge. Along with Bacon,
Hobbes, Locke, and Hume, he insists that words, if used with meaning,
must have clear reference to something. Hobbes and Campbell believe
that this reference is to things actually existing and actually appre-
hended. Locke and Hume believe that the reference is to "ideas." The
issue, is, of course, one which has to do with the reality of knowledge.
There is no disagreement about the fact that unless language has dis-
tinct and specific reference to the object of which it is a sign, it is pure
jargon. In the works of these men we find the basic tenets of what has,
of late, come to be called general semantics.80

While serving in his country parish, Banchory Ternan, Campbell be-
came concerned about dialects. And later, as a professor of pulpit elo-
quence at Marischal College, he warned his students that "if you attach
yourself to a provincial dialect, it is a hundred to one, that many of
your words and phrases will be misunderstood in the very neighboring
province, district, or county." S1 To overcome the fault, he recom-
mended that his students study the best grammarians and the best
English authors.

Evidence of English interest in the meaning of words is found in the
publication of dictionaries. Samuel Johnson's fascinating Dictionary
(1755) had been followed by John Walker's Critical Pronouncing Dic-
tionary and Expositor of the English Language (1791), Thomas Sheri-
dan's General Dictionary of the English Languages (1780), John
Ash's New And Complete Dictionary (1775), and William Kendrick's
New Dictionary (1773). It had been preceded by Nathaniel Bailey's
Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1721), Edward Phillip's
New Worlde of Wordes (1658), and Henry Cockeram's Dictionary
(1623).

Following the lead of Quintilian,82 Campbdl divides elocution into
two kinds: "grammatical" and "rhetorical." The "grammatical art*' is the
foundation of the "rhetorical art/' The highest aim of the former is the
lowest aim of the latter. But the two overlap. Grammar looks toward
"syntax" or the composition of words into one sentence. Oratory looks
toward "style" or both the composition of words into sentences and the
composition of many sentences into a discourse.83 The orator must not
only be master of tiie lariguage he speaks but he also must be capable
of adding to grammatical purity "those higher qualities of elocution,
which will render his discourse graceful and energetic." In regard to
grammar, Campbell designates "use" as the supreme authority over
language as long as it is "reputable," "national," and "present." He
provides us with nine canons by which the speaker may be guided

96 THE HERITAGE

in the selection or rejection of words and expressions. Achievement
of "grammatical purity/' he says, is the common aim of both gram-
marian and orator. Purity of the English tongue may be injured,
first, by "barbarism" or the use of obsolete, new, or "new-modeled"
words, second, by "solecism" or violation of the rules of syntax,
and third, by "impropriety," or failure to use words to express pre-
cise meaning. In regard to style, Campbell insists that, in addition to
being pure, it must be perspicuous, vivacious, elegant, animated, and
musical. He elaborates upon only two of these qualities. Perspicuity is
violated by speaking obscurely, ambiguously, or unintelligibly. Vivac-
ity results from the use of language that imitates things, the use of
specific terms, and the use of tropes, as well as from brevity in the use
of words, variety in the arrangement of sentences, and inconspicuous-
ness in the use of connectives.84

Unfortunately, Campbell became interested in botany and did not
write his contemplated chapters of the Philosophy which, presumably,
would have set forth his ideas on elegance, animation, and music in
language.

Richard Whately's theory of elocution reveals six distinguishing char-
acteristics. The first is his refusal to introduce observations concerning
grammar. It is not, he says, exclusively the concern of rhetoric. The
second is his limited treatment of ornament. The only aspects of lan-
guage that have application to argumentative and persuasive works,
he claims, are perspicuity, energy, and elegance. Perspicuity is aided by
avoiding overly-long sentences, uncommon words, prolixity, and overly-
concise statements. Energy is improved by choosing words carefully, by
expressing ideas briefly, and, insofar as the rules of language will per-
mit, by expressing first the ideas that occur first Elegance is assisted by
avoiding "homely and coarse words and phrases," and by using a
"smooth and easy flow of words in respect of the sounds of the sen-
tences." A third feature of Whately's theory of elocution is his emphasis
upon the relativity of perspicuity. Lucidity of thought, he says, cannot
be predicted without reference to the hearers and to the kind and de-
gree of attention they will bestow upon it. A fourth distinctive element
is Whately's insistence that, to achieve elegance of language, the
speaker should "maintain the appearance of expressing himself, not, as
if he wanted to say something,, but as if he had something to say." A
fifth distinguishing mark is his discussion of spurious kinds of writing
and speaking in which "obscurity" rather than perspicuity is to the pur-
pose. And a sixth is his emphasis upon differences between rhetoric and
poetic. Whereas Campbell sees a close relationship between oratory
and poetry, Whately discerns great unlikeness. The poet and the orator,
says Campbell, make use of the same rules of composition and the same

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 97

tropes and figures. Frequently, their aims coincide. Versification makes
poetry only a variety of oratory and not a different form of expression.85
To Whately, the differences stem from primacy of purpose as well as
from primacy of language and form. Thought is primary in rhetoric, but
subordinate in poetry. Elegant language and metre are primary in
poetry, but subordinate in oratory.86

Pronunciation

All of these English theorists emphasize the importance of delivery.
Campbell devotes One full lecture to it. Ward quotes Cicero, Demos-
thenes, and Quintilian in agreeing that "this is the principal part of an
orator's province, from whence he is chiefly to expect success in the art
of persuasion." Blair declares that "nothing is more important" in pub-
lic address than delivery. Whately calls it "a most important branch of
rhetoric." 87

Principles

Although the detail devoted to the subject of pronunciation by these
rhetoricians ranges from Ward's lengthy and minute explanation to
Blair's few paragraphs, all.are in agreement that the delivery of the
speaker ^shpuld be /'natural." They differ, however, concerning the
methocUef teaching" delivery. Ward is neo-classical in his tendency to
formulate rules, suggest models, and recommend imitation. Qgnipbell.,
Blair, and Whately, on the other hand, may be classified as romanticists
who^ confidently trusted the end result of an individual's response to
his own- thought-emotion. Two basic points of view seem to underlie
their instruction. In ^he first place, the speaker should concentrate upon
hi^; subject. This point is given strong emphasis in the Elements of
Rhetoric, and, although Whately claims some degree of originality for
the idea, it is expressed or implied in the theory of each of his predeces-
sors. Se^QstdlyrAe sgeak§i:^Pl4dfeel todepe^ent o£ ral§s ^djismain
confident of tl|§ effectiveness of delivery that springs spontaneously
from earnest attempts to communicate. The "natural manner," says
Whately, is "that whicn one naturally falls into who is really speaking,
in earnest, and with a mind exclusively intent on what he has to say,
avoiding all thoughts of self." It is "the delivery of a man of sense and
taste, speaking earnestly, on a serious subject, and on a solemn occa-
sion." When a speaker is engaged in public discourse, suggests Blair,
"lie ought to be then quite in earnest; wholly occupied with his subject
and his sentiments; leaving nature, and previously formed habits to
prompt and suggest his manner of delivery." 88

98 THE HERITAGE

Whately, possibly because he had been able to observe the effects of
the elocutionary movement, pens not only a carefully meditated argu-
ment for the natural manner but also a castigating refutation of me-
chanical systems of teaching delivery. His observations are written as
though they were the outgrowth of considerable discussion, and so
intent is he upon establishing the soundness of his philosophy that he
repetitiously writes his chapter twice. He argues that systems of analyz-
ing and marking passages are ( 1 ) imperfect in that no variety of marks
could be invented to indicate all the different "tones/' (2) circuitous
in that they attempt to teach the reader to do that which comes nat-
urally, and (3) ineffectual because attention is focused on the voice,
and the voice, therefore, becomes studied and artificial.

Voice and Articulation

The recommendations of these English rhetoricians in regard to voice
and articulation hold up well when compared with modern precepts.
Campbell divides delivery into "grammatical pronunciation" and ^rhe-
torical pronunciation." These, he says, are so perfectly distinct, that
"each may be found in a very eminent degree without the other."
Grammatical pronunciation consists "in articulating, audibly and dis-
tinctly, the letters whether vowels or consonants, assigning to each its
appropriate sound, in giving the several syllables their just quantity,
and in placing the accent, or, as some call it, the syllabic emphasis, in
every word on the proper syllable." Rhetorical pronunciation consists
"in giving such an utterance to the several words in a sentence, as shows
in the mind of the speaker a strong perception, or as it were, feeling of
the truth and justness of the thought conveyed by them, and in placing
the rhetorical emphasis in every sentence, on the proper word, that is,
on the word which, by being pronounced emphatically, gives the great-
est energy and clearness to the expression. Under this head is also com-
prehended gesture." 89

Campbell warns against a forced and unnatural grammatical pro-
nunciation and lists five potential faults: (1) straining the voice
"beyond its natural key," (2) rapidity of rate, (3) a "theatrical and
violent manner," (4) "insipid monotony," and (5) a "sing-song man-
ner." In connection with this he offers four suggestions on the manage-
ment of the voice: (1) avoid beginning on too high a clef, (2) preserve
the same key on which you begin, (3) begin by speaking deliberately
and slowly, (4) engage in frequent practice in reading, speaking, and
repeating before at least one "sensible companion."

Blair approaches the matter somewhat differently and says that the
speaker, in delivery, has two aims: (1) to speak so as to be fully and

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 99

easily understood, and (2) to speak with grace and force. To accom-
plish the first objective, the speaker should (a) "use a due degree of
loudness of voice/' ( b ) use distinct articulation, giving "every sound its
due proportion . . . without slurring, whispering, or suppressing any of
the proper sounds," (c) be moderate in rate, avoiding extremes of pre-
cipitancy and slowness, and (d) use proper pronunciation, forming each
sound according to "polite usage" and giving each word its "proper
accentuation." To accomplish the second objective, the speaker attends
to emphasis, pauses, tones, and gesture.90

Whately tells us that three qualities of delivery fall within the prov-
ince of rhetoric: (1) perspicuity, which makes the meaning fully
understandable to the hearers, (2) energy, which conveys meaning
forcibly, and (3) elegance, which conveys meaning agreeably. How-
ever, he does not follow through and isolate the elements that enter
into these qualities; rather he attempts to establish the general prin-
ciple that "nature" will spontaneously suggest the proper emphases,
tones, pauses, degrees of loudness, degrees of rapidity, and so forth.

Ward treats voice under the headings "quantity" and "quality." As to
quantity of voice, he recommends that the speaker "fill the place where
he speaks," avoid extremes of pitch, avoid monotony and sudden varia-
tions, adapt to the nature of the subject, maintain variety in pace, give
each word and syllable "its just and full sound, both as to time and
accent," and attend to pausing. As to quality of voice, he asks that we
make the best of what nature has bestowed upon us, and, by careful
attention, improve on its strength, clearness, fullness, and smoothness,91

Action

Ward uses the term gesture as the label for "a suitable conformity of
the motions of the countenance, and several parts of the body in speak-
ing, tq the subject matter of the discourse," and divides it into "natural"
and "imitative." Natural action consists of those gestures and motions
that normally accompany our words; imitative action is that which is
used in describing or in personating. He provides rather elaborate
advice concerning management of the head, countenance, eyes, shoul-
ders, arms, hands, chest, and feet92

The other theorists do not follow Ward's lead. Whately refuses to
discuss bodily action. The situation at present, he says, seems to be,
tKaf TEe disgust excited, on the one hand, by awkward and ungraceful
motions, and, on the other, by studied gesticulations, has led to the
general disuse of action altogether; and has induced men to form the
habit ... of keeping themselves quite still, or nearly so, when speak-
ing." 93

100 THE HERITAGE

"gesture" under the head of rhetorical pronuncia-
to say upon the subject.94 Perhaps he felt, as did
Whately, that "it would be inconsistent ... to deliver any precepts for
gesture; because the observance of even the best conceivable pre-
cepts, would, by destroying the natural appearance, be fatal to their
object. . . ." 95

Blair doubts the value of Quintilian's list of rules, and suggests that
"the study of action in public speaking, consists chiefly in guarding
against awkward and disagreeable motions; and in learning to perform
such as are natural to the speaker in the most becoming manner." OG
Whately agrees, and argues that "no care should be taken to use grace-
ful or appropriate action; which, if not perfectly unstudied, will always
be ... intolerable. But if any one spontaneously falls into any gestures
that are unbecoming, care should then be taken to break the habit." 97

Stagefright

Whately devotes considerable space to the problem of stagefright,
and considers it a problem for those who drop the "sheltering veil" of
an artificial mode of delivery and adopt a natural manner. Blair and
Ward touch upon it in short paragraphs, and suggest that it is a prob-
lem peculiarly common to those who are just beginning to speak in
public.

Whately reasons that the cause of this "embarrassed, bashful, nervous
sensation" is the close relationship between audience and speaker. The
speaker knows that every fault in his delivery "makes the stronger im-
pression on each of the hearers, from their mutual sympathy, and their
consciousness of it." Ward claims that the problem is related to the
degree of modesty in the speaker as well as to his ambition to excel.

Both Blair and Whately offer the same advice. The speaker, suggests
Blair, "will find nothing of more use to him, than to study to become
wholly engaged in his subject; to be possessed with a sense of its im-
portance or seriousness; to be concerned much more to persuade than
to please ? 9S

Kinds of Delivery

list three forms of delivery: speaking

is the Better form.
Whatfily writes elaborately concerning the superiority 6f ffie metlTod,
and recommends that the extemporaneous speaker attempt to reach the

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 101

high level of style and arrangement which, generally, characterizes
written discourse."

Ward suggests that speaking from memory provides more opportunity
for control of the voice and for the use of bodily action than does the
method of reading. Campbell recommends that the preacher read from
the pulpit because speaking extempore requires a certain "original and
natural talent/' and because, in speaking memoriter, the voice falls
into a "kind of tune." Whately suggests that, with effort, it is possible
for a person to read as well as he speaks. He discusses three levels
of good reading: correct reading, which attempts to convey the sense
of the material read; impressive reading, which adds to correct reading
"some adaptation of the tones of the voice to the character of the sub-
ject, and of the style"; and fine reading, which "seems to convey, in
addition, a kind of admonition to the hearers respecting the feelings
which the composition ought to excite in them." 10°

English theories have had strong and permanent impact upon Amer-
ican instruction in rhetoric. The English writers to whom we are pri-
marily indebted are John Ward, George Campbell, Hugh Blair, and
Richard Whately. All but Ward were theologians. Fundamentally and
basically, the theories expounded by these writers follow in the classical
tradition. Ward's System is representative of the many English works
on rhetoric that were, with only slight deviation, exclusively classical in
concept. But, of these four, Ward alone looked only behind himself.
Campbell was strongly influenced by Bacon's insistence upon inductive
reasoning from observed facts, and by the empirical psychology of
Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and Reid. As a result, his Philosophy initiated a
psychological-epistemological-semantic trend in rhetorical theory that
had tremendous influence upon American thought. Blair added to the
literature of his day still another, yet sound, treatise on genteel criticism.
His Lectures may be described as belles lettristic-critical in trend. They
isolate rhetoric from "logical and ethical disquisitions" and locate it
with studies that "sooth the mind, gratify the fancy, or move the affec-
tions," Invention was the core of Whately's theory; but his philosophy
of delivery was romantic-naturalistic. Consequently his Rhetoric may
be characterized as inventional-naturalistic in trend. It initiated the
rapid development of a rhetoric of argumentation and debate. Priest-
ley's Lectures, mentioned here only because they round out the picture
of trends in English rhetorical theory, may be labelled as associationis-
tic. Without question, these writers bequeathed to modern scholars the
very best rhetorics that had been written since the time of Quintilian.

102 THE HERITAGE

Notes

1. See Warren Guthrie, "The Development of Rhetorical Theory In America,"
Speech Monographs, XIII (1946), 14-22; XIV (1947), 38-54; XV (1948), 61-71;
XVI (1949) ,98-1 13.

2. Ibid., XIII, 16-18; Wilbur Samuel Howell, "Ramus and English Rhetoric:
1574-1681," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXXVII (October, 1951), 299-310.

3. For biographical information see Douglas Ehmnger, "Jonn Ward and -His
Rhetoric," SM, XVIII (1951), 1-16.

4 Another English treatise that adhered more or less slavishly to classical
doctrine and is worth mention here is John Lawson's Lectures Concerning Oratory
(London, 1742). See Guthrie, op. tit., XIV, 41-44; H. F. Harding, English Rhetori-
cal Theory, 1750-1800, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1928;
W. F. Sanford, English Theories of Public Address, 1530-1828 (Columbus, Ohio,
1931); Douglas Ehninger, "Dominant Trends in English Rhetorical Thought/'
Southern Speech Journal, XVIII (1953), 3-12; Ray E. Keesey, "John Lawson's
Lectures Concerning Oratory" SM, XX ( 1953), 49-57.

5. A System of Oratory, 2 vols. (London, 1759), p. 19. Cf. Quintilian, Insti-
tutes of Oratory, tr. J. S. Watson (London, 1856), ii. 15, 1-37; Cicero, On The
Character of the Orator, tr. J. S. Watson (London, 1855), i. 31.

6. Ward, System, I, 21. Cf. Cicero, i. 11-15.

7. Cf. Cicero, ii, 29. Quintilian, lii. 5, 1-2.

8. Cf. Quintilian, in. 3, 1.

9. For biographical information, see George Campbell, Lectures on Ecclesiasti-
cal History, ed. George Skene Keith (London, 1800), Vol. I.

10. See Guthrie, op. cit, XV, 63-64.

11. See Harding, op. cit., p. 140; Clarence W. Edney, "Campbell's Lectures on
Pulpit Eloquence," SM, XIX (1952), 1-10.

12. George Campbell, The Philosophy of Rhetoric (Boston, 1823), Preface, p.
6; Alta B. Hall, George Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric, Book I, unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1934; Clarence W. Edney, George Camp-
bell's Theory of Public Address, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa, 1946; John
Crawford, The Rhetoric of George Campbell, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, North-
western, 1947.

13. Richard Whately, Elements of Rhetoric (London, 1841), p. 12.

14. George Campbell, Lectures on Systematic Theology and Pulpit Eloquence
(Boston, 1810), p. 167.

15. Henry Home of Kames, Elements of Criticism (Edinburgh, 1762).

16. Francis Bacon, The Advancement of Learning (London, 1605); Novum
Organum (London, 1620).

17. John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (London, 1690),

18. David Hume, A Treatise of Humm Nature (London, 1730-1740).

19. For biographical information see James L. Golden, The Rhetorical Theory
and Practice of Hugh Blair, unpublished Master's thesis, Ohio State, 1948; J. Hall,
Account of The Life and Writings of Hugh Blair (London, 1807); the Dictionary
of National Biography; Robert M. Schmitz, Hugh Blair (New York, 1948).

20. Alexander Jamieson's Grammar of Rhetorical and Polite Literature (Lon-
don, 1818) was another English work that followed this trend and was widely used
in American colleges as an introductory text.

21. (Philadelphia, 1844), p. 10.

22. Ibid., pp. 11-15.

23. Ibid., p. 10.

24. Ibid., p. 261.

25. For biographical information see W. J. Fitzpatrick, Memoirs of Richard
Whately (London, 1864); Reverend T. Mozley, Reminiscences, Chiefly of Oriel
College and the Oxford Movement (Boston, 1882); W. Tuckwell, Reminiscences

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 103

of Oxford (London, 1907); E. Jane Whately, Life and Correspondence of Richard
Whately, D. D. (London, 1866); the Dictionary of National Biography. For the
chief work on Whatel/s rhetoric, see W. M. Parrish, "Whately and His Rhetoric/*
QJS, XV (1929), 58-79; and by the same author, "Richard Whately's Elements of
Rhetoric, Parts I and II: A Critical Edition," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Cornell University, 1929.

26. Richard Whately, Elements of Logic (New York, 1864).

27. Whately, Rhetoric, p. 30.

28. Whately's well-known handbook on Christian Evidences appeared in 1837,
and was translated during his lifetime into at least a dozen languages.

29. (Dublin, 1781).

30. Blair, Belles Lettres, p. 10; Campbell, Lectures, p. 179; Ward, System, I,
48-49, Whately, Rhetoric, pp. 16-32. Cf. Elbert W. Harrington, Rhetoric and the
Scientific Method of Inquiry (Boulder, Colorado, 1948).

31. Whately, Rhetoric, Preface, p. x; Campbell, Philosophy, p. 59. Ward, Sys-
tem, I, 31-32. Blair, Belles Lettres, p. 12.

32. Cf. Quintilian, v. 10, 94.

33. Ward, System, I, 44-76.

34. Cf. Quintilian, iii. 6, 66-67.

35. Cf. James H. McBurney, "The Place of the Enthymeme in Rhetorical
Theory/' SM, III (1936), 49-74.

36. Quintilian, v. 10, 11-16.

37. Thomas Reid, Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man ( Edinburgh, 1785 ).

38. Descartes, Locke, and Mill also insisted that intuition (or perception) was
the crux of any attempt to explain the sources of knowledge. Mill declared that
"the truths known by intuition are the original premises from which all others are
inferred." John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic (New York, 1873), p. 4.

39. Cf. Hume, op. cit., p. 332.

40. Campbell, Philosophy, pp. 61-84.

41. Clarence W. Edney, "Campbell's Theory of Logical Truth/' SM, XV
(1948), 19-32.

42. Rhetoric, pp. 7, 36.

43. Ibid, p. 39.

44. Ibid., p. 48.

45. Cf. Orville L. Pence, "The Concept and Function of Logical Proof in the
Rhetorical System of Richard Whately," SM, XX (1953), 23-38.

46. See The Rhetoric of Aristotle, ii. 25, tr. Lane Cooper (New York, 1932),
p. 180.

47. "Something that might, conceivably, be submitted to the senses, and about
which there could be no disagreement among persons who should be present and
to whose senses it should be submitted." Cf., Locke, op. cit., IV. 16, 5.

48. When the conclusion is one which is general in nature or which assigns
causes and which has demanded an exercise of judgment.

49. Whately, Rhetoric, pp. 62-75. Cf. Campbell, Rhetoric, pp. 82-84; Locke,
op. cit., IV. 15, 4. Whately is indebted to Campbell.

50. Whately, Logic, p. 256-258. Cf. Mill, op. cit., p. 225.

51. The only difference between Campbell's theory of experience and that of
Whately in this instance is pomt-of -reference, one epistemological, the other logical.

52. Cf. Aristotle, op. cit., ii. 25, p. 177. Cicero, Rhetorical Invention, i. 42.
Quintilian, iv. 13, 1.

53. Cf. Aristotle, op. cit., ii. 25, p. 177.

54. Whately, Logic, pp. 168-250.

55. Campbell, Philosophy, pp. 146-174.

56. Whately, Rhetoric, pp. 195-197, 207-208; Ward, System, I, 158.

57. Ward, System, I, 156-158; Campbell, Philosophy, p. 107; Blair, Belles
Lettres, p. 385; Whately, Rhetoric, p. 195.

58. Blair, Belles Lettres, pp. 395-362.

104 THE HERITAGE

59. Whately, Rhetoric, pp. 209-230.

60. Campbell, Rhetoric, pp. 111-126.

61. Locke, Essay, II. 21, 5-6.

62. System, I, 140.

63. Campbell, Rhetoric, p. 129; Ward, System, I5 141; Blair, Belles Lett res,
p. 15; Whately, Rhetoric, p. 208.

64. Whately, Rhetoric, p. 208. Cf. Aristotle, op. cit., ii. 1, p. 92.

65. System, I, 142-147.

66. Campbell, Philosophy, pp. 128-129.

67. Ibid., p. 129; Whately, Rhetoric, pp. 246-247.

68. Whately, Rhetoric, p. 232.

69. Ibid., p. 257.

70. Ibid., p. 231; Blair, Belles Lettres, p. 147.

71. Whately, Rhetoric, p. 241.

72. Ibid., pp. 260-262.

73. Campbell, Philosophy, p. 130.

74. Cf. Cicero, ii. 76, 77. See Russell H. Wagner, "The Meaning of Dispositio"
in Studies in Speech and Drama (Ithaca, N. Y., 1944), pp. 285-294; Douglas
Ehninger, Selected Theories of Inv&ntio in English Rhetoric, unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Ohio State, 1949.

75. Campbell, Philosophij, pp. 100-124.

76. Whately, Rhetoric, pp. 239.

77. Ward, System, pp. 110-424.

78. Cf, Cicero, iii, 52.

79. Blair, Belles Lettres, pp. 101-205.

80. Cf. Bacon, op. cit., pp. 19-32; Hobbes, Leviathan, I. 4, 25; R. I, Aaron,
John Locke (London, 1937), pp. 95-208; Hume, op. cit., p. 320. See Alfred Kor-
zybski, Science and Sanity (Lancaster, Pa., 1948).

81. Campbell, Lectures, pp. 181-200.

82. Cf. Quintilian, ix, 3, 2.

83. Ibid., viii, 2, 1.

84. Campbell, Philosophy, pp. 175-475.

85. Ibid., p. 18.

86. Whately, Rhetoric, pp. 263-379.

87. Blair, Belles Lettres, p. 365; Whately, Rhetoric, p. 381; Ward, System, I,
314-316; Campbell, Lectures, pp. 196-211.

88. Blair, Belles Lettres, p. 376; Whately, Rhetoric, pp. 390, 401, 410-421;
Campbell, Lectures, p. 200; Ward, Si/stem, I, 319, 382-383.

89. Campbell, Lectures, p. 197.

90. Blair, Belles Lettres, pp. 366-368.

91. Ward, System, I, 329-343,

92. Ibid., I, 344-359.

93. Whately, Rhetoric, p. 448.

94. Campbell, Lectures, p. 198.

95. Whately, Rhetoric, p. 451.

96. Blair, Lectures, p. 375.

97. Whately, Rhetoric, p. 450.

98. Ibid., pp. 420-430; Blair, Belles Lettres, p. 376.

99. Ward, System, I, 381-384; Campbell, Lectures, pp. 205-208; Whately,
Rhetoric, pp. 385-447.

100. Ward, System, I, 382; Campbell, Lectures, p. 208; Whately, Rhetoric,
pp. 385, 404-406.

i) English Sources of American Elocution

FREDERICK W. HABERMAN

As a modern study elocution originated in England. In its first half
century, from 1750 to 1800, it Was accepted in America as readily as in
its native land, and in the next century cultivated even more assidu-
ously. The Americans, in the early stages of the movement's history,
republished British authors, copied them with or without acknowledge-
ment, modified and adapted their teachings to meet their situations.
In the later stages, they folded in a new French influence. Meanwhile,
they were creating a movement in America which possessed attributes
of independence as well as adaptation.

In other essays in this volume may be found discussions of the de-
velopment of elocution in America. We shall here be concerned with
the phenomenon of elocution in England: with the genesis of the move-
ment; with the characteristics of the movement— its scope, methodology,
divisions, and terminology; with the authors and books which were the
substance of the elocutionary ideas; and with the host of other elocu-
tionary books which followed in the train of the movement.

The Genesis of the Elocutionary Movement

Elocution concentrated on man speaking. It emerged from the eight-
eentiTcgflttt^^ investigafcioa^of-^ie rhetorical canon of delivery.

Delivery, to be sure, had been studied in all ages and in all nations of
the western world prior to 1750, but the elocutionary movement was
an examination of delivery so specialized in nature and content as to
differ in kind from former studies.1 This phenomenon was the result of
several eighteenth-century forces working in concatenation.

Just as the seventeenth century was a century of criticism of style, so
the eighteenth was one of criticism of delivery. Inevitably, the criticism
feir^n^tTGEaviTy on* tr^teptes^ Occupants of the English pulpit. Rich-
ard Steele 2 in the pages of the Spectator wrote disparagingly of their
"rakish, negligent air" and their habit of "lolling on their books/' Jon-

105

106 THE HERITAGE

athan Swift, acutely aware of the layman's grumbling about the dull-
ness of church services, laid the blame on whomever he was talking to.
To his congregation, Swift said that it was his parishioners' gluttony and
not the preacher's dullness which caused them to go to sleep; besides
that, it was absurd to expect superb oratory from all preachers on all
occasions.3 To the clergy, however, he observed that the reading of
sermons, especially with the head "held down from the beginning to
the end, within an inch of the cushion" must be roundly condemned,4
A satirical poem by Dr. Byram makes the same point:

For, what's a sermon, good, or bad,
If a man reads it like a lad?
To hear some people, when they preach,
How they lun o'er all parts of speech,
And neither raise a word, nor sink;
Our learned bishops, one would think,
Had taken school-boys from the rod,
To make ambassadors of God,5

The faults of delivery most commonly noted by the critics of the
eighteenth century were frigidity, inertness, colorlessness, vulgarity,
absent-minded reading. Lord Chesterfield, that untiring expositor of
the worldly education of the man of position, limned the ideal to be
achieved: "a most genteel figure, a graceful noble air, an harmonious
voice, an elegancy of style, and a strength of emphasis/' 6

The elocutionary movement was also a direct outgrowth of the
seventeenth- and eighteenth-century interest in the English language.
In bringing the language to full stature in the seventeenth century, the
English had discovered, somewhat to their surprise, that they could
legitimately be proud of their native tongue. Along with their pride
ran a concurrent sentiment: to make the language an even more noble
instrument by standardizing and improving it in all its aspects, both
written and spoken.

Many of those who dealt professionally with language advocated the
establishment of an English Academy which would legislate on the
purity and beauty of the tongue, In 1660 R. H., in 1679 Dryden, in 1697
Defoe, in 1712 Swift supported the founding of a society which would
"polish and refine the English tongue." r

The Academy was not founded until 1901, but these pleas in support
of one resulted in the making of dictionaries to increase knowledge
about the individual words that make up the language and in the mak-
ing of grammars to improve the handling of words in collocation. Con-
cern about improvement of the written aspects of the language was
matched by correlative concern over the oral aspects. John Evelyn, for

ENGLISH SOURCES OF ELOCUTION 107

example, chairman of a committee on the improvement of the English
tongue appointed by the Royal Society in 1664, proposed:

That there might be invented some new periods and accents, besides such
as our grammarians and critics use, to assist, inspirit, and modifie the pronun-
^iation of sentences, and to stand as markes before hand how the voyce and
^fone is to be governed, as in reciting of playes, reading of verses, etc., for the
varying the tone of the voyce and affections, etc.8

The lexicographers of the eighteenth century undertook the invention
of ways to implement the first idea implied in Evelyn's proposal: the
correct phonation of words in isolation. Bailey in 1731, Kenrick in 1773,
and Ash in 1775 adopted devices of syllabification, accent and stress
marks.9 At this point, the elocutionists turned to lexicography, Thomas
Sheridan's dictionary of 1780 was the most complete guide to pronun-
ciation until Walker's dictionary appeared eleven years later.10

The study of phonation in individual words led naturally to investi-
gation of the second idea implied in Evelyn's proposal: the devising of
ways to indicate inflection, pause, force, and rate in the delivery of
words in connected discourse. Such investigation resulted in the publi-
cation of treatises on voice management, complete with symbolic sys-
tems making it theoretically possible to render the language with grace
and correctness. These treatises on voice management were manuals
of elocution.

Another reason for the interest in delivery and for the development
of the art of elocution was the perception"that power in oral presenta-
tion was an instrument of public persuasion. Buffon, .well known in
England, said in his famous discourse of 1753 that the requisites for
arousing the crowd are a "vehement and affecting tone, expressive and
frequent gestures, rapid and ringing words." 1:L Charles Palmer, Deputy-
Sergeant to the House of Commons, wrote as one of his maxims that
delivery "is the very life and soul of eloquence. . . . The art of oratory
is never so great and potent by the things that are said, as by the manner
of saying them." 12

Not only in parliament but also in the pulpit was oral presentation
thought to have a persuasive effect. Competence retained the congrega-
tions; incompetence lost them.

The parliamentary audience is a specialized one; so, in some senses,
is the religious audience. But the elocutionists were aware also of the
emerging mass audience in the eighteenth century, created by the im-
mense diffusion of knowledge. Lecky says that the effect of this diffu-
sion of knowledge was such that "all important controversies became
in their style and method more popular." 13 Popularization meant that
ideas addressed to this mass audience, eager for knowledge and leaders,

108 THE HERITAGE

should be invested with more immediacy, more vividness, more sim-
plicity, and more clarity not only in composition, but also in delivery.

The general interest in delivery so noticeable after 1750 is traceable
in part to the renewed popularity of the theatre, to the development of
a new style of stage delivery that revealed the potentialities of the lan-
guage, to the personal influence of the great actor David Garrick, to
the pedagogy of the two actors, Sheridan and Walker, who adapted
stage delivery to certain forms of social discourse, and to the recogni-
tion that the training of a young speaker might well include emulation
of the best actors and practical exercise in dramatic presentation.14

Finally, the elocutionary movement arose as a response to the de-
mands of the age for training and educating its rising generation. Good
speakers were in demand; society lavished extensive favors upon those
who spoke well. Burgh, headmaster of a boys' school, spoke of the need
for a "competent address and readiness" in "parliament, at the bar, in
the pulpit, at meetings of merchants in committees for managing pub-
lic affairs." 15 Sheridan remarks that "promotion, or honour to individ-
uals, is sure to attend even a moderate share of merit" in good public
reading or speaking.16 William Enfield said that "there are few persons
who do not daily experience the advantages" of a "just and graceful
elocution." 17

Practical need for expertness in delivery, as presented by complain-
ing auditors or felt by ambitious speakers; philological and linguistic
investigations into pronunciation and inflectional patterns; recognition
of the persuasive effect of pleasing delivery; the emergence of a new
convention of dramatic presentation that invested delivery of spoken
language with a new liveliness; the acknowledgment of competence in
speaking as a part of general education— all these forces acting together
in the eighteenth century inspired the most intensive study of delivery
ever undertaken.

Characteristics of the Elocutionary Movement

Sheridan gave elocution its broadest definition, one that compre-
hended the work of the elocutionists for over a hundred years:

A just delivery [Sheridan says] consists in a distinct articulation of words,
pronounced in proper tones, suitably varied to the sense, and the emotions of
the mind; with due observation of accent; of emphasis, in its several grada-
tions; of rests or pauses of the voice, in proper place and well measured de-
grees of time; and the whole accompanied with expressive looks, and signifi-
cant gesture.18

This "just delivery" fitted either the rhetorical situation or the inter-
pretational situation. The elocutionists, it is true, concentrated in their

ENGLISH SOURCES OF ELOCUTION 109

pedagogical techniques more upon the practice of reading aloud, than
on the delivery of original speeches. Rice in 1765 and Cockin in
1775, for instance, were interested solely in the art of reading aloud.19
There is implicit, however, in the writings of many elocutionists, the
retention of a relationship between training in reading aloud and the
delivery of an extemporaneous speech at the bar or from the well of a
legislative assembly. Mason says that his book on elocution is "intended
chiefly for the assistance of those who instruct others in the art of
reading. And of those who are often called to speak in publick." 20
Walker says that "as reading is a correct and beautiful picture of
speaking; speaking, it is presumed cannot be more successfully taught,
than by referring us to such rules as instruct us in the art of reading," 21
Sheridan concurs. He points out that the aim of public speaking is persua-
sion, that persuasion cannot be accomplished without the appearance
of earnestness, that earnestness of delivery can best be learned through
elocution. Whether the goal of the elocutionists was the creation of the
graceful reader or the persuasive speaker or both, the technique was
that of supplying principles and rules and systems of notation in con-
junction with a skillful teacher for the better mastery of the printed

PaSe-

The printed page, the voice, language, and the body as used in oral
presentation supplied the material upon which the movement brought
philosophy, rules, principles, notation, and a master's insight to bear.
In devising ways to analyze these materials the elocutionists used the
precepts of ancient rhetoric and the practices of the stage. But a new
force, operating over a period of some decades, eventually gave the
movement its distinctive turn.

That force was science. It is the elocutionists' primary claim to fame
in rhetorical history that they applied the tenets of science to the
physiological phenomena of spoken discourse, making great contribu-
tions to human knowledge in that process.

The spirit of the elocutionary movement, like that of science, was
one of independence, of originality, of a break with tradition.

The methodology of the elocutionary movement, like that of science,
was a combination of observing and recording. Just as the astronomer
observed the movements of the planets and recorded them in special
symbols, so the elocutionists observed certain phenomena of voice,
body, and language, and recorded them in systems of notation. The
elocutionists who contributed most to the movement are those whose
work is characterized by exhaustive analysis based on observation, by
systematic organization, and by the invention of systems of symbolic
representation.

The philosophy of the elocutionary movement, like that of the scien-

HO THE HERITAGE

tific-rationalistic creed., was a conception of man controlled by natural
Jaw. The elocutionists believed that the nature of man was governed by
the same law and order which seventeenth-century science had dis-
covered in the nature of the universe. They could claim that their rules
and principles and systems represented the order that is found in
nature; they were "nature still, but nature methodized." The phrase
"follow nature" meant in general that the rational order found in the
universe should be reproduced in books; and it meant in the field of
delivery that the laws of elocution must approximate as closely as pos-
sible the laws of life.22

The elocutionists of the eighteenth century generally referred to their
subject as an art. Rarely did they use the word science or the word
scientific. But as the century neared its completion, the subsidiary sub-
jects investigated became more and more "scientific" in the sense that
elocution tended to be concerned with speech correction, with the
anatomy of vocal physiology, and with the physics of sound production.
Many writers of the nineteenth century-Thelwall, Rush, Bell, Plumptre,
for example— looked upon elocution as a science.23

Scientific or artistic, the maxims and theoretical precepts which
teacher and pupil were expected to master were diverse. For con-
venience in examination we may profitably group the contributions of
the elocutionists into four divisions.

The division of bodily action included all the signs of visual com-
munication, such as modifications of facial expression, manner and
attitude, movement of arms and legs. The qualities of gesture or of
bodily action most frequently sought were those of grace and force.
Though the elocutionists set up no hard and fast dichotomy of method
for the attaining of these two qualities, it seems apparent that there
were two levels of training in their systems. The one was that of simple
practice in the use of bodily actions, such as the sweep of the arm, the
pointing of the finger, the clasping of the hands. This was the gesture
of technical training. The other was that of the complex action required
to communicate the passions. This was the gesture of emotional expres-
sion. The elocutionists implied that the appropriate gesture of emotional
expression gave force to delivery; and they inferred that studious atten-
tion to the technique of controlling bodily action lent it grace. To
accompany their descriptive and sometimes prescriptive accounts of
bodily actions, the elocutionists eventually invented symbols to repre-
sent them.

The division of vpicejmaageramt j^mj^

ful manipulation *of EnglislL8sgund$. The elocutionists wished to make
tEe voice into a resilient instrument, capable of reading with variety
and effectiveness. Vocal flexibility, buoyancy, responsiveness to mean-

ENGLISH SOURCES OF ELOCUTION 111

ing and innuendo, control— such were the qualities which the elocu-
tionists sought. This division included definition and expert discussion
of the elements of voice management, among them accent, emphasis,
pause, pitch, force, rhythm, tone; it included the formulation of bodies
of principles in some instances, of bodies of rules in others, and the
development of rational systems, complete with notation, for the proper
handling of the voice.

The division of pronunciation took account of the actual phonation of
words. In trying to ameliorate dialectal variations from the "standard"
pronunciation, to excise vulgar pronunciations, and to remedy .mistaken
pronunciations, the elocutionists, perforce, became lexicographers. Both
Walker and Sheridan, at an early date in the movement, began to work
on methods for standardizing pronunciation and for devising a nota-
tion by which the correct pronunciation would be immediately appar-
ent. In other words, they were looking for ways to systematize pronun-
ciation just as they had systematized the management of the voice and
the actions of the body. Sheridan produced a dictionary in 1780 making
use of a device new to lexicography: the respelling of the word to be
pronounced into a loose phonetic script. Walker, in his dictionary of
1791, says of his own method:

[It] divides the words into syllables, and marks the sounds of the vowels
like Dr. Kenrick, spells the words as they are pronounced like Mr. Sheridan,
and directs the inspector to the rule by the word like Mr. Nares; but, where
words are subject to different pronunciations . . . produces authorities for one
side and the other, and points out the pronunciation which is preferable.24

In the division of vocal production the elocutionists attended to the
problem of the actual formation of the sounds of speech. Their insist-
ence that oral delivery be both pleasurable and persuasive presupposed
that the pupil was capable of producing speech sounds— if not pleasant
sounds, at least recognizable ones. A pupil who lisped or stammered
could not become a polished speaker so long as he retained his defective
utterance. Of all the divisions of elocution, this one had been the least
cultivated by any predecessors of the elocutionists. Little was known
about the anatomy of the speech mechanism, much less about the
nature of speech sounds, and virtually nothing about speech therapy.
In this division, the elocutionists addressed themselves to three prob-
lems: the identification of English sounds, the manner in which those
sounds were produced, and the impediments which might interfere
with the production of those sounds.

The elocutionists employed terms which had long been common-
place in rhetorical history, but they used them with the new significa-
tion that emerged during the eighteenth century. The years 1625-1725

112 THE HERITAGE

form the great divide between two periods in which the technical defi-
nitions of the terms style., elocution, and pronunciation differed signifi-
cantly. Whereas pronunciation once embraced the whole field of deliv-
ery, it later signified the correct phonation of words in isolation.
Elocution, which once meant the manner of artistic composition, be-
came identified with the manner of artistic delivery. Style, once a
subsidiary synonym for elocution, later comprehended the whole canon
of the choice and arrangement of words.

Certain characteristics of the intermediate century, 1625-1725, explain
these changes in interpretation. These years were notable for the reac-
tion from the excesses of the rhetoric of exornation with which elocu-
tion, especially, was intimately identified; for the spreading influence
of the scientific method; and for the development of linguistic scholar-
ship. These forces fused into a destructive energy that drove the theories
and practices of the rhetoric of exornation, together with its specialized
terminology, into oblivion; but at the same time, they generated a con-
structive impulse that led to the formulation of a new set of theories
and practices to take the place of the old.

The criticism of exornation was sharp. In 1643, Howell called it "the
disease of our time"; Wilkins, Barrow, South, Arderne, Eachard, Glanvil,
and others condemned "the hard words, abstruse and mysterious
notions, the affected use of scraps of Greek and Latin, pretty cadences,
fantastic phrases, and rhetorical figures of all kinds." 25 These attacks
doomed exornation; and elocution, a word frequently used as title for
this conception of rhetoric, shared the obloquy along with the subject
matter. The reaction from exornation, plus the impetus of the scientific
method, led to a re-examination of the laws of the language and the
principles and purposes of prose. In the course of this re-examination
pronunciation, style, and elocution obtained their new meaning and
status. Let us see briefly how these new meanings came about.

Linguistic scholars strove to solidify, purify, and standardize the
language. In that process, it became important to discover the correct
phonation for words and to employ a term that would indicate this
special province of linguistic study. The term employed, of course, was
pronunciation. The term was satisfactory in many ways: it had etymo-
logical claim to the required meaning; it had always possessed, in Eng-
lish rhetorical theory, a secondary definition equivalent to the new
requirement; and it was willingly given this primary meaning by the
new writers who were interested in oral presentation.

The scientific and scholarly impulses that produced these linguistic
investigations, produced also a revolutionary change in the conception
:>f what constituted good prose, The "vicious Abundance of Phrase/7

ENGLISH SOURCES OF ELOCUTION 113

condemned by the Royal Society, gave way to the slide rule and geo-
metrical unity.26 Prose became "functional"; utility supplanted artifice.
In analyzing the new prose, literary critics shifted their attention from
the speaker to the writer, partly because written prose lent itself to
more scientific scrutiny, and partly because these scholars were more
interested in the fine art of literature than in the useful art of oratory.
Having given up the term elocution, the critics needed a new term.
Style was at hand. It served admirably because of its relative etymolog-
ical purity, its straightforward, uncontaminated history, its intimate
connection with writing, and its tenuous relation to oratory.

The new investigators of oral presentation also needed a term. Four
were at hand. Pronunciation, the traditional term, would no longer
suffice because it had been given a restricted meaning, one which the
new group could use very nicely. Another term was action. Derived
from actio and possessing some of the sanction of classical rhetoric,
especially Cicero's,27 the term was, however, too limited in scope. For
action referred specifically to overt physical motion and tended to ex-
clude voice management. A third term was the modern word delivery.
But it was too modern. Adapted from the French dSlivrer, the primary
signification of the word in England ( as in its native land it is still the
main signification) was "to set free" whether by spear, by habeas corpus,
or by midwife. The term later achieved currency in the language of law,
of sport, of physical deportment, and by 1806, in the language of rheto-
ric, although there are scattered examples of its use in this sense before
this date. The fourth term, elocution, seemed satisfactory. It was etymo-
logically pure. The sense of oral presentation of expression was, in fact,
more closely related to the etymology of the word than was the sense
of style or manner or composition. It was a word traditionally connected
with rhetoric. It was a close relative of the word eloquence. And on the
principle that respectability is determined by the company one keeps,
it could shake off the disrepute of exornation when associated with the
virtue of the new oral presentation.

Authors and Books

The elocutionary movement may best be understood by an examina-
tion of tfie boots which were produced in its name. There were hun-
dreds published. Some of them, those that contained the substance of
the elocutionary ideas, established the subject. These books were origi-
nating accounts or investig^^ such as those by Mason,
Burghy Skeridan, Walker, Austnvand Bell Another category was that
of the manual designed for use in the professions, such as the manual

114 THE HERITAGE

o£ clerical elocution. A third was that of books for school and home
use: the reasoned textbooks, the volumes containing text and illustra-
tive anthology, and the books of elegant extracts.

Of the originating accounts, John Mason's An Essay on Elocution, or
Pronunciation (1748) is the first book to include the word elocution in
its title.28 This short work deals with "the right Management of the
Voice in reading or speaking." 29 The author finds a difference between
the two. Reading, he says, must "express the full Sense and Spirit of
your Author" and speaking must be "suitable to the Nature and Impor-
tance of the Sentiments we deliver." 30 His advice is simultaneously
applicable to both.

Section I deals with a bad pronunciation and how to avoid it; Sec-
tion II with a good pronunciation and how to attain it. Mason con-
stantly recurs to the philosophy epitomized in a statement from Burnet's
Pastoral Care which he quotes with approval:

He that is inwardly persuaded of the Truth of what he says, and that hath
a Concern about it in his Mind, will pronounce with a natural Vehemence
that is far more lovely than all the Strains that Art can lead to. . . .31

Although he knows that the best advice is to "make the Ideas seem to
come from the Heart," he cannot avoid the prescriptive rules which
became a commonplace in the elocutionary movement; for example, "A
Comma stops the Voice while we may privately count one, a Semi-colon
two; a Colon three: and a Period four." 32

James Burgh, the eminent headmaster of an academy at Stoke New-
ington which he founded in 1747, was a successful writer on political
philosophy whose only book on oratory was The Art of Speaking
(1762).33

Part I of this book is an essay "in which are given Rules for expressing
properly the principal Passions and Humors, which occur in Reading,
or Public Speaking." 34 Part II is an anthology of readings, with glosses
referring to the passions defined in the essay.

The essay contains directions to students on the vocal management of
certain types of sentences and certain types of material, an exposition
of physical demeanor in depicting seventy-six different "humors or
passions," 35 and some vigorously penned general observations on ora-
tory. The most striking part of the book is the section in which Burgh
shows how the principal emotions are expressed by attitudes, looks,
gestures, and language. The opening lines of his description of despair
are typical of the vehemence and intensity his analyses call for:

Despair . . . bends the eyebrows downward; clouds the forehead; rolls the
eyes around frightfully; opens the mouth toward the ears; bites the lips; widens
the nostrils; gnashes with the teeth, like a fierce wild beast.36

ENGLISH SOURCES OF ELOCUTION 115

The idea held by Burgh that "nature has given to every emotion of
the mind its proper outward expression/' 37 and the correlative idea
that various physical features, such as the eye, are capable of projecting
this expression, while not new in rhetorical history, were eagerly made
a part of the elocutionary movement. Burgh's conception and intensive
analysis of these ideas were given circulation in at least seven British
editions and eight American reprintings of his work. He was read by
Sheridan, paraphrased by Walker, anthologized by Scott, pirated by an
American publisher,38 quoted by Austin, and recalled in one way or
another by elocutionists for over a century.

In 1756 at the age of thirty-seven, after his career as actor and stage
manager had ended in failure, Thomas Sheridan found a new vocation
as teacher, lecturer, and author in elocution. Aside from the Works of
Swift with Life (1784),39 Sheridan's publications deal with three sub-
jects, education, pronunciation, and elocution, though these three may
be considered as facets of his one main interest, speech. The central
proposition of his three works on education is that oratory, properly
taught (by Mr. Sheridan, of course), will eliminate the disorders in
England.40 Sheridan's two works on pronunciation, the Dictionary
(1780) and the Grammar (1780),41 fulfilled a linguistic need, advanced
the theory of phonetics, and fixed pronunciation as one of the divisions
of elocution.

His three works dealing more specifically with reading and speaking
are published lectures. In A Discourse being Introductory to a Course
of Lectures on Elocution and the English Language., delivered at Ox-
ford in 1759,42 Sheridan made a plea for the study of spoken language,
for the employment of properly qualified masters of elocution in a
revised educational system, and for the encouragement of research in
the principles and rules of elocution. Sheridan's most important work
is Lectures on Elocution published in 1762.43 In this series of seven
lectures, he provided the working definition of elocution, established
his philosophy, and discussed articulation, pronunciation, accent, em-
phasis, tones or notes of the speaking voice, pauses or stops, key or
pitch, management of the voice, and gesture. Lectures on the Art of
Reading (1775)44 repeats much of the doctrine published thirteen
years earlier, but is notable for its inclusion of his simple symbolic code,
and of his phonetic analysis of speech sounds.

Sheridan's ideal delivery was characterized by grace, sincerity, and
naturalness. When he began his work, he leaned heavily on the teach-
ings of Cicero and Quintilian and on the application to the lectern of
his experience with the British stage. As accretions were made to the
methodology of elocution, he adopted certain new techniques, among
them a code of his own invention, symbolizing emphases, pauses of

116 THE HERITAGE

varying duration, rapidity, long and short syllables. Sheridan was the
movement's greatest early figure. He gave definition and categories to
the study; he conducted a vigorous propaganda for its acceptance,
reaching large audiences through his lectures and his books; and he
practiced brilliantly his own art.

Joshua Steele was a prosodist, a musical theorist, a business man, a
reformer, and, by accident, an elocutionist because he wrote a book
which greatly influenced the course of the movement.45 Prosodia Ra-
tiondis (1775 and 1779 )46 is a series of tracts, a record of the cor-
respondence between Lord Monboddo and Steele, both of whom were
interested in the phenomena of language and speech. Steele convinced
Monboddo that speech has melody and rhythm. He showed that this
melody was a kind of tune or pitch pattern inherent in speech; that this
rhythm was a recurrence of measured quantity which depends upon
the nature of language and upon an inner understanding of context
externalized by the outward manifestation of voice. To demonstrate his
theses, he analyzed spoken speech according to musical principles,
showing how speech moved up and down the musical scale by slides,
the intervals between syllables being almost infinitesimal. By contrast
the intervals between notes on a musical staff were easily distinguish-
able. Since speech melody could not be precisely rendered by literal
musical symbolization, Steele invented a new notation for speech con-
sisting of curved lines or slides. Having taken the initial step in the
notation of voice management, he went on to design symbols for other
factors of voice, including a set of phonetic characters which seem
remarkable for his time.

With this system, Steele hoped that one might sight-read a discourse
as he might a score of music and that one might preserve for posterity
the performances of superb actors and orators. He illustrated his hopes
with a transcription of a soliloquy as delivered by David Garrick, in
which he used the musical staff, the clef, the time signature, and indi-
cators for rate, pause, pitch, force, and stress. But in these aspirations
he was to fail where later the phonograph, the tape recorder, and the
cinema were to succeed.

Steele influenced the prosodists, among them Odell, Roe, Chapman,
and Coventry Patmore,47 as well as the elocutionists. Walker borrowed
heavily from him (and with virtually no acknowledgment); Thelwall
as heavily (but with acknowledgment); Austin, Smart, Barber, Rush,
Comstock, Murdock— elocutionists on both sides of the Atlantic em-
ployed in one way or another his new analyses of the phonetic, dynamic,
and prosodic components of speech.

John Walker, like Thomas Sheridan, was thirty-seven years old when
he quit the stage and turned to teaching, lecturing, and writing on elo-

ENGLISH SOURCES OF ELOCUTION 117

cution to earn a livelihood. His life offers astonishing parallels to Sheri-
dan's. Both of them were actors, theatre managers, educators, lecturers,
writers, and lexicographers. But they differed in mental constitution.
Sheridan was an observer, Walker a lawgiver; Sheridan formulated
generalizations, Walker established a system; Sheridan was more the
pleader who sought a revival of oratorical training, Walker more the
pedagogue who decided the methods to be used in that training.

Walker published many works on pronunciation, elocution, and com-
position. In matters of pronunciation, he became the eighteenth-century
embodiment of an English Academy. The principal work of his life,
A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Lan-
guage (1791),48 has been called "the statute book of English ortho-
epy." 49 His school manuals on grammar and composition were pot-
boilers written late in life after he had earned widespread fame as a
lexicographer and elocutionist.

Walker published six books on elocution.50 The Exercises -for Im-
provement in Elocution (1777), dedicated to Garrick, is a collection of
readings. The Elements of Elocution ( 1781 ) , his most important rhetor-
ical work, is a systematic presentation of a theory of elocution. Hints
for Improvement in the Art of "Reading (1783), is a brief summary of
the Elements. A Rhetorical Grammar (1785) unites the old canons of
rhetoric with the new ones of elocution. Melody of Speaking Delineated
(1787) explains a method of teaching elocution by means of signs
adapted from musical notation. The Academic Speaker ( 1789) is a book
of extracts for declamatory practice, introduced by two essays on ges-
ture and acting.

The basic idea in Walker's Elements of Elocution is that the reader
obtains harmony of sound and achieves fidelity to the author's purpose
by applying the inflections found in nature to the various grammatical
forms utilized by the author. The sense, emphasis, suspension, com-
pleteness, force, and pitch contained in grammatical forms are released
in spoken discourse through employment of the four inflections— rising,
falling, and two circumflex inflections. Walker's exhaustive analysis of
the interplay of inflection and grammatical form resulted in an elabo-
rate system of rules governing the elements of vocal technique.

His claim that he discovered the inflection is not to be credited too
seriously, for Steele wrote about upward and downward slides six years
before Walker published Elements.5* But his application of the theory
of slides to grammatical forms is undoubtedly original. Walker pro-
foundly influenced the elocutionary movement.

In 1806, the Reverend Gilbert Austin published Chironomia; or a
Treatise on Rhetorical Delivery, a quarto volume of 600 pages, hand-
somely bound and printed, and available at £2.2s.52 Of his seven other

118 THE HERITAGE

publications, one is a sermon, and six are on scientific and mechanical
subjects such as barometers, carbonic acid gas, and condensers.

In Chironomia, Austin sought to give to the public some rules and
precepts by which the national oratory might be improved, to compile
a virtual anthology of quotations from the most renowned ancient and
modern rhetoricians on the subject of delivery, to provide a scientifically
exhaustive analysis of gesture, and to popularize a set of agglutinative
symbols by which delivery might be recorded with brevity and preci-
sion.

When he examined the possible positions of the arms in gesture,
Austin sloughed off tradition, eliminated the context of meaning in
speaking, and observed only what positions the arms were capable of
taking. His examination was physiological in nature; his method one of
abstract spatial analysis. To obtain a pattern for the notation of ann
positions, he imagined the speaker inside a sphere. Every point at
intervals of 45° on this sphere had a symbol. For example, the right
arm can take five positions when operating laterally from the body: Z
is overhead, h is horizontal, R is straight down, d is midway between
horizontal and down, e is midway between horizontal and overhead.
Thus Austin could denote on a line of poetry, say, directions for arm
positions in much the same way that Beethoven could place marks on
a piece of paper for a pianist to follow.

In addition to the "scientific" method just described, Austin used other
methods when describing gesture. For positions of the hands, he used
the method of classification by categories; for gestures of head and eyes,
the method of arbitrary selection; and for complicated action to express
complex emotional states, the method of conventional designation.

Chironomia had only one British and no American edition, but it
exerted an enormous influence upon elocutionists. In England, A. M.
Hartley called it "incomparably the ablest treatise on delivery in gen-
eral, that has yet appeared in our language/' 53 In America, a host of
writers, among them, Caldwell, Bronson, Bacon, Fulton and Trueblood,
and as late as 1916, Joseph A. Mosher, were indebted to this extraordi-
nary book.54

Alexander Melville Bell taught in Newfoundland, Edinburgh, Lon-
don, Queens College in Canada, Lowell Institute in Boston. Acclaimed
wherever he went, he seems to have been the international dean of the
movement.55

In his forty-nine publications,56 Bell touched almost every part of
the art and science of elocution, but he made his most original and most
enduring contribution to the subject in the division of vocal produc-
tion.57 In this area, he came close to realizing the hundred-year-old
dream of the elocutionists— that of discovering the physiological means

ENGLISH SOURCES OF ELOCUTION 119

by which each speech sound is produced, of classifying those sounds
scientifically, and of inventing a notation that would include a symbol
for every sound. His task was to find a rational basis upon which to
establish a symbolic system. Previous investigators had begun with
sounds and then had tried to describe the physiological positions of the
articulative organs when producing them. What Bell did was to begin
with physiological positions of the organs and then determine what
sounds he could make. Then, by modifying in a systematic way each of
the articulators in turn, he obtained different sounds which formed a
concatenated progression. He could thus account for any sound made
by the human voice, whether an orthodox sound of a national language,
or one of sneezing, snoring, grunting, or spitting. He discharged the
second half of his task by inventing symbols which "depicted" the
actions of the organs forming the sound, thus earning their title of
"Visible Speech." Although visible speech had faults, its virtues were
many, and its influence widespread.58 It became the basis of Henry
Sweet's Broad Romic which in turn became the basis of the IP A, and it
earned Bell a line in George Bernard Shaw's preface to Pygmalion.

Elocution Manuals

The major books which we have so far examined established the basic
ideas of elocution. Some of them gave definition and scope to the sub-
ject; others were investigative treatises, records of research that pushed
outward the bounds of the subject and made contributions to human
knowledge. Many of these books were used in the classroom, but only,
of course, for mature or advanced students. So, along with the complete
accounts of the subject and the detailed surveys of its divisions, an-
other type of book appeared as a part of the movement— the manual of
elocution.

There were, in general, two categories of manuals, those intended for
practitioners of the professions, and those intended for school and nome
use, /,

Most numerous of the professional manuals were those written for
tlajM^ergy. First to provide the application of the new theory of elocu-
tion to the various arts of the church service was Anselm Bayly in two
books, A Practical Treatise on Singing and Playing (1771)59 and The
Alliance of Musick, Poetry, and Oratory (1789).60 John Wesley's little
book of a dozen pages, costing one penny, summarized much of Mason's
advice and exemplified the author's profound respect for brevity and
economy.61 James Wright's The Philosophy of Elocution (1818),62
contains a long elucidation of the office of the minister, 200 pages of
voice management (the principles being paraphrased from Sheridan

120 THE HERITAGE

and the system of notation adapted from Walker), and 175 pages of
liturgies of the church painstakingly marked for delivery. The Rev-
erend John Henry Hewlett's Instructions in Reading the Liturgy of the
United Church of England and Ireland ( 1826 ) 6S analyzes the pitfalls of
church oratory, provides sixty pages of advice on voice management,
interprets and marks fifty liturgical pieces, using a notational system
of commas, dashes, accents, hyphens, capitals, asterisks, circles, and
superior numbers referring back to rules.

An unusual book on elocution for the clergy was Garrick's Mode of
Reading the Liturgy of the Church of England (1840) by Richard
Cull64 Cull's opening essay on the analogy between music and speech
is written in the tradition of Joshua Steele. The rest of the book is a
re-editing of material which had previously been published.65 The gen-
eral method used for explaining Garrick's technique is to quote a line of
the service, and then to comment on the manner in which Garrick
delivered it, or vice versa. For example:

When speaking the three following words, Mr. Garrick recommended a
look, expressive of the utmost suitable gravity, to be cast slowly around the
congregation, the voice rather low, and denoting, together with the whole
manner, that solemn and reverential respect which is due to the place of pub-
lic worship.

Dearly beloved brethren.
Here make a pause much longer than the comma 6G

The main objectives of the authors of manuals of clerical elocution
were to provide instruction in the use of voice and body and to help in
the interpretation of the various liturgies. The study of elocution may
have been of some value in helping to rid church oratory of its worse
external faults, such as indistinctness, monotonous droning, and inau-
dibility. But it must be doubted that pulpit oratory could achieve the
warmth and spirit and animation so desired by the critics until there
was general realization that a sermon was different from an essay— that
it was hewn from granite, not delicately modeled with clay.

There were hundreds of manuals of elocution published between
1750 and 1900 which were intended primarily for use in schools but
which could sometimes double for use in the home. Commonest of the
school manuals was the book containing an introductory text and an
anthology of pieces for reading or declaiming.

In the later eighteenth century, manuals by William Enfield, John
Walker, and William Scott rolled up a wave of popularity that carried
them into the nineteenth century. Enfield's The Speaker (1774)67 con-
tained 150 pieces suitable for Saturday "Speech Day/' prefaced by a
short essay that compressed elocution into eight rules. Scott's Lessons

ENGLISH SOURCES OF ELOCUTION 121

in Elocution (1779)68 went through more than a score of editions in
England and the United States. The book contained nothing original.
American publishers prefaced their editions with four essays on de-
livery borrowed from Walker and Burgh. Walker's Academic Speaker
(1789),69 written for young scholars, contributed, in addition to a set
of extracts, an essay on gesture copied later in many books and one on
the relation between acting and speaking.

The distinctive feature of Henry Innes' Elocution, its Principles and
Practices (c. 1834) 70 is its allotment of space in the introductory text
to the division of vocal production, in which he describes the vocal
mechanism, identifies, and suggests remedies for certain speech defects.

A. M. Hartley used a device that became increasingly popular during
the nineteenth century. In the final part of the introductory text of
The Academic Speaker (1846),71 he names various emotional states
and describes the physical action required to express each. In the
anthology, he places superior numbers over certain words. For example,
he inserts eighteen different numbers in the text of Chatham's speech
against the American war. To find the name of the emotion, the reader
refers to the number key in the headnote; after finding the name, he
refers to the essay which describes the appropriate action. The head-
note to Chatham's speech reads in part:

1. Resolute and angry remonstrance. 2. Indignant appeal to honour. 3.
Lofty pride and regret. ... 16. One of the finest strokes of oratory ever pro-
duced—finger of the right hand sublimely pointed to the tapestry of the
Armada, eyes fixed on EfEngham with ineffable scorn. . . ,72

Taken all in all, these books of text and anthology surveyed the
totality of the field of elocution, but few of them were complete ac-
counts in themselves. The division given most space was that of voice
management, followed far in the rear by vocal production, bodily
action, and pronunciation.

Closely related to this genre and intended not only for the school,
but eteo for the hearth where reading was a "favorite entertainment of
the social circle," 73 were volumes of elegant extracts. Typical is Mrs.
Fanny Palliser's The Modern Poetical Speaker ( 1845) ,74 This book of five
hundred pages, with a preface but no introductory text, was the first
general anthology to include a good set of footnotes to explain hard
passages, to identify obscure allusion, and to provide, in some cases,
factual background for a proper appreciation of the piece. Furthermore,
Mrs. Palliser did not alter a word without putting the substitute in
italics; she always used asterisks to indicate lines deleted; and she did
not "improve" the pieces according to her own lights. The practice of
"improving" selections was commonplace enough. John Thelwall in his

122 THE HERITAGE

anthology, for example, quoted the first ninety-four lines of Collins'
"The Passions, an Ode"; then, deleting Collins' last stanza, substituted
sixty-eight lines from his own pen which differed from the pattern of
the original poem in theme, cadence, and rhyme.75

The book of elegant extracts was executed according to an implicit
code: theory must be cut to a minimum or eliminated entirely; the great
masters should have a place of honor; the modern poets should be
given a niche; no shocking word should pass the printer; extracts from
the big three of early nineteenth-century England should be included
-Mrs. Hemans, Southey, and Scott; and by and large, it was to be
borne in mind that American authors were not quite ready for canoni-
zation.

The reasoned textbook of some length, the third type of manual,
appealed to advanced students, mature minds, teachers, and educators;
if was carefully organized and fully illustrated with examples; it might
contain a relatively short set of selections; and it possessed an air of
scholarship and philosophical completeness. One of the best correlated
and most philosophical of the textbooks is Benjamin Humphrey Smart's
The Theory of Elocution (1819).76 Each of the first three chapters of
Theory corresponds to a division of the field of elocution: "Mechanical
Reading" corresponds to vocal production, the subject matter being
articulation; "Significant Reading" to voice management, the subject
matter being inflection; and "Impassioned Reading" to bodily action,
the subject matter being looks, tones, and gestures. The last two chap-
ters are further explorations of the implications of impassioned reading.

The purposes animating the authors of the school manuals were not
always the same, and, of course, an author might have more than one
purpose in his book. There were, in the main, however, three objectives
that the manuals sought to achieve. The first of these was the acquisi-
tion of elocutionary effectiveness: delivery of discourse with distinct
and pleasing articulation, graceful modulation, and decorous demeanor.
A second purpose, overlaid, to be sure, on the first, was the inculcation
of moral excellence. Toward the end of the period under consideration,
there was an increasing number of authors who laid claim to the teach-
ing of moral precepts and respectable conduct. Likewise a third purpose
appeared with more and more frequency: the development of a taste
for culture and quality.

Both the purposes and the books which the elocutionists ^wrote to
accomplish them, were eagerly accepted in America. The demand for
elocution in this nation being as great or even greater than it was in
England, it is no wonder that the British found a market here for their
books, or that piratical publishers should look for the cheapest way to
capture the market, or that a band of indigenous writers should arise

ENGLISH SOURCES OF ELOCUTION 123

to challenge the supremacy of the originators of the movement and
eventually to take over its direction.

Notes

1. For more complete studies of the elocutionary movement, see Mary Margaret
Robb, Oral Interpretation of Literature in American Colleges and Universities ( New
York, 1941); Daniel E. Vandraegen, "The Natural School of Oral Reading in Eng-
land, 1748-1828," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern, 1949; Harold
Friend Harding, "English Rhetorical Theory, 1750-1800," unpublished Ph.D. dis-
sertation, Cornell University, 1937; Frederick W. Haberman, "The Elocutionary
Movement in England, 1750-1850," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell Uni-
versity, 1947, which I have used freely; and Warren Guthrie, "The Development
of Rhetorical Theory in America, 1635-1850— V: the Elocutionary Movement-
England," Speech Monographs, XVIII (1951), 17-30.

2. The Spectator, No. 147 (1711). Also see Joseph Addison on this topic in
No. 407 (1712).

3. "On Sleeping in Church," The Works of Jonathan Swift, ed. Walter Scott
(Edinburgh, 1814), VIII, 143.

4. "A Letter to a Young Clergyman," Works, VIII, 347.

5. Quoted by James Burgh, The Art of Speaking (London, 1762), p. 216.
Burgh obtained it from James Fordyce, The Art of Preaching ( Glasgow, 1755 ) .

6. The Letters of P. D. Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield, ed. Lord Mahon (Lon-
don, 1845-1853), I, 366. The date of this letter is 1749. For similar comments see
Letters of Philip Dormer, Fourth Earl of Chesterfield to his Godson and Successor,
ed. Earl of Carnarvon (London, 1890), p. 391; and for more complete study of his
views see Donald C. Bryant, "The Earl of Chesterfield's Advice on Speaking,"
Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXXI (December, 1945), 411.

7. The quotation is from "Essays Upon Several Projects," The Works of Daniel
De Foe, ed. William Hazlitt (London, 1840-1843), III; Swift, "A Proposal for
Correcting, Improving, and Ascertaining the English Tongue," Works, IX, 355; John
Dryden, Dedication of Troilus and Cressida; R. H., New Atlantis, cited by Edmund
Freeman, "A Proposal for an English Academy in 1660," Modern Language Review,
XIX (July, 1924), 291-300.

8. In a letter to Sir Peter Wyche, 1665. See J. E. Spingarn, Critical Essays of
the Seventeenth Century (London, 1908), II, 310-312. In a letter to Samuel Pepys
in 1689, Evelyn refers to his work on this committee and to his idea of an Academy
for the "Art and Improvement of speaking and writing well" ( p. 327 ) .

9. Nathan Bailey, Universal Etymological English Dictionary (London, 1731);
William Kenrick, A New Dictionary (London, 1773); John Ash, New and Com-
plete Dictionary of the English Language (London, 1775).

10. Thomas Sheridan, A General Dictionary of the English Language ( London,
1780); John Walker, A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the
English Language (London, 1791).

11. "Discourse on Style," trans, and ed. Lane Cooper in Theories of Style (New
York, 1907), p. 171.

12. Aphorisms and Maxims (London, 1748), Maxim 108.

13. W. E. H. Lecky, A History of England in the Eighteenth Century (London,
1887), VI, 166.

14. Karl Mantzius, A History of Theatrical Art (London, 1909), V, 383 ff.;
Joseph Knight, David Garrick (London, 1894), p. 25 ff.

15. Burgh, p. 154.

16. Thomas Sheridan, Lectures on Elocution (London, 1762), p. 1.

17. The Speaker (London, 1780), Introduction.

18. Lectures, p. 10.

124 THE HERITAGE

19. John Rice, An Introduction to the Art of Reading with Energy and Propriety
(London, 1765); William Cockin, The Art of Reading Written Language, or, an
Essay on Reading ( London, 1775 ) .

20. John Mason, An Essay on Elocution, or Pronunciation (London, 1748), title
page.

21. John Walker, Elements of Elocution (London, 1781), I, 2.

22. Despite the claim that they "follow nature," the elocutionists have sometimes
been labeled "mechanists" as well as "naturalists." For vaiying interpretations on
this question see James A. Winans, "Whately on Elocution," QJS, XXXI (February,
1945), 1-3; Charles A, Fritz, "From Sheridan to Rush," QJS, XVI (February,
1930), 82 £E.; Wayland Maxfield Parrish, "The Concept of 'Naturalness/" QJS,
XXXVII (December, 1951), 448-454; Robb, op. cit., 16-69 passim; Haberman,
op. cit., 49-67 passim; Vandraegen, op. cit. passim, and his "Thomas Sheridan and
the Natural School," SM, XX (1953), 58-64, Richard D. Harper, "The Rhetorical
Theory of Thomas Sheridan," unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, Wisconsin, 1951, pp.
200 ff.

23. John Thelwall, "Introductory Discourse on the Nature and Objects of Elo-
cutionary Science" (London, 1805); A. S. Thelwall, A Lecture on the Importance
of Elocution in Connexion with Ministerial Usefulness (London, 1850); James
Rush, The Philosophy of the Human Voice (Philadelphia, 1827), Introduction; A.
M. Bell, Principles of Elocution (Edinburgh, 1849), Preface; C. J. Plumptre, Kings
College Lectures in Elocution (London, 1881), p. 226.

24. Critical Pronouncing Dictionary, p. 9.

25. See Spingarn, Critical Essays, "IV, The Trend Toward Simplicity," pp.
xxxvi-xlviu.

26. Thomas Sprat, The History of the Royal Society of London (London, 1667),
4th ed. (London, 1734), p. 112.

27. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, XI, iii, 2, 6; Cicero, Brutus, XXXVIII.

28. (London).

29. Mason, Elocution, p. 5.

30. Ibid., p. 22.

31. Ibid., p. 32.

32. Ibid., pp. 23-24.

33. (London).

34. Title page.

35. Professor Parrish is the latest scholar to count them. See footnote 5 in "The
Burglarizing of Burgh, or the Case of the Purloined Passions/' QJSf XXXVIII
(December, 1952), 433.

36. P. 173. Pagination refers to the edition retitled "On Public Speaking" and
bound with Sheridan's Rhetorical Grammar (Philadelphia, 1783).

37. Burgh, p. 166.

38. See note 35, supra.

39. (London), 18 vols.

40. British Education, or the Source of the Disorders of Great Britain ( London,
1756), A General View of the Scheme for the Improvement of Education (Dublin,
1757); A Plan of Education for the Young Nobility and Gentry of Great Britain
(London, 1769).

41. Thomas Sheridan, A General Dictionary of the English Language (London,
1780), 2 vols. A Rhetorical Grammar was published originally in England as a
preface to the Dictionary. It was published separately in America under the editor-
ship of Archibald Gamble (Philadelphia, 1783). This American edition contains a
seventy-page appendix entitled "On Public Speaking," a reprinting without credit
of Part I of Burgh's The Art of Speaking (London, ed. of 1775). Several investiga-
tors, with this volume in their hands, have erroneously ascribed authorship to
Sheridan.

42. (London).

ENGLISH SOURCES OF ELOCUTION 125

43. (London).

44. (London).

45. See John B. Newman, "Joshua Steele: Prosody in Speech Education/' un-
published Ph D. dissertation, New York University, 1950; by the same author, "The
Phonetic Aspect of Joshua Steele's System of Prosody/' SM, XVIII (1951), 279-
287; and "The Role of Joshua Steele in the Development of Speech Education in
America/' SM, XX (1953), 65-73.

46. See Newman, "Phonetic Aspect/* footnote 1, for a discussion of the title and
the two editions of this book.

47. T. S. Omond, English Metrists (London, 1921), 94 et passim; George Saints-
bury, A History of English Prosody (London, 1908), II, 548 passim.

48. ( London) , 28th ed. in 1826.

49. DNB.

50. Place of publication for all six is London.

51. See Newman, "Role of Joshua Steele."

52. (London).

53. The Oratorical Class-Book (Glasgow, 1824), p. 7.

54 Merritt Caldwell, A Practical Manual of Elocution (Philadelphia, 1845),
Preface, v; C. P. Bronson, Elocution; or Mental and Vocal Philosophy (Louisville,
1845), engravings reprinted without credit; Albert M. Bacon, A Manual of Gesture
(New York, 1872), Preface; R. I. Fulton and T. C. Trueblood, Practical Elements
of Elocution (Boston, 1893), Preface and engravings; Joseph A. Mosher, The Es-
sentials of Effective Gesture (New York, 1916), Preface.

55. Frederick W. Haberman, "The Bell Family—A Dynasty in Speech/' Southern
Speech Journal, XV (December, 1949), 112-117.

56. Two publications which contain his philosophy in briefest form are A New
Elucidation of the Principles of Speech and Elocution (Edinburgh, 1849), 168 edi-
tions by 1892; and Essays and Postscripts on Elocution (New York, 1886).

57. See Estelle L. McElroy, "Alexander Melville BeH— Elocutionist and Phone-
tician/' unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1951.

58. See Otto Jesperson, The Articulation of Speech Sounds ( Marburg in Hessen,
1889), p. 3; Maurice Grammont, Traite de Phonetique (Paris, 1933), p. 13; Claude
E. Kantner and Robert West, Phonetics (New York, 1941), p. 287.

59. (London).

60. (London).

61. "Directions Concerning Pronunciation and Gesture" (London, 1793). See
The Works of the Reverend John Wesley, A.M. ( London, 1840-1842 ) , 4th ed., XIII,
488 ff.

62. (Oxford).

63. (London).

64. (London).

65. The notes made by the clergyman tutored by Garrick were systematized by
a friend, J. W. Anderson, and published under the title The Common Prayer, as
read by the late Mr. Garrick (London, 1797).

66. Cull, Mode of Reading, p. 67.

67. (London). At least eight editions by 1851. 1 have used an edition of 1798.

68. (Edinburgh). 12th English ed. in 1799; at least 11 American editions by
1820. 1 have used an edition of 1808 published at Worchester.

69. (London). At least three editions by 180L I have used an edition of 1800
published at Dublin.

70. I have used the 9th ed., n.d. References in the Catalogue of the British
Museum and in the English Catalogue of Books, which list as the main title, what
appears as the subtitle in the 9th ed., indicate that the 1st ed. is London, 1834.

71. (Glasgow). I have used the Glasgow, 1853 edition. The Academic Speaker
is very similar to his The Oratorical Class-Book (Glasgow, 1824), 15th ed. in 1854.

72. Hartley, Academic Speaker, p. 68.

126 THE HERITAGE

73. Thomas Ewing, Principles of Elocution (Edinburgh, 1815); 36th ed. m
1861, The quotation is from the 12th ed. (Edinburgh, 1828), Preface.

74. (London).

75. John Thelwall, Illustrations of English Rhythms (London, 1812),

76. (London). Smart also published a companion exercise book, The Practice
of Elocution (London, 1820); 4th ed., 1842.

PART II

Rhetoric, Elocution, and Speech

U American Contributions to Rhetorical
Theory and Homiletics

JOHN P. HOSHOR

At the opening of the nineteenth century, rhetorical education in
America was based largely on the classical writings on the subject-
principally the works of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian-and, more
especially, on the works of certain English rhetoricians, notably Blair
and Campbell. Their works, together with Whately s Elements of
Rhetoric., published in 1828, were the most widely used textbooks in
American colleges in the first half of the century, and continued to be
an important influence throughout the century.

As early as 1800, however, an American rhetoric sufficiently complete
to ke_c?#sic*ered a contribution to rhetorical theory made Its appear-
aafi^athis was the edition of the collected lectures on rhetoric by Presi-
dent John \Vitherspoon of Princeton. Lecturing at Princeton, Wither-
spoon emphasized two general points of view which were repeated and
developed by Chauncey Goodrich lecturing a few years later at Yale.
These were, first, that wMejsome natural talent or capacity "is evi-
dently necessary to the instruction or stucly of this art," the orator is es-
sentially a product of his practice and training rather than his heredity;
and, second, that the wise.stp.dy and translation of great models is an
invaluable aid in developing $ME in the art of rhetoric.1

Witherspoon's theory of rhetoric is essentially classical, although he
does not accord to inventio the prominence nor importance given this
canon by the writers of antiquity. The orator, he feels, is more likely
to have difficulty "in selecting what is proper, than in inventing some-
thing that seems to be tolerable/' 2 In one other way Witherspoon differs
somewhat from the classical tradition. He defined more clearly the
objects of speech-making: information, demonstration, persuasion, or

129

130 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

entertainment, While these are similar to Campbell's objects of oratory,
they represent a sharper distinction and are developed quite differently.

In 1806, Joh^Quincy Adams was inducted as first Boylston Professor
of Rhetoric and Oratory at Harvard University, and in 1810 his lectures
were published. In terms of completeness and fidelity to classical doc-
trines, Adams* theory of rhetoric surpasses Witherspoon's. As a part of
the American development of rhetorical theory in the nineteenth cen-
tury it is significant to note that Adams' lectures rely very little on the
works of the great English rhetoricians of the period, such as Campbell
and Blair, and almost not at all on the English elocutionists such as
Sheridan, Steele, and Walker. It is noteworthy also that Adams placed
emphasis on deliberative and judicial oratory because of their special
importance in a free country.3

Adams regarded speaking as the "necessary adjunct and vehicle of
reason," and the means for the conveyance of thought in "rational inter-
course with his fellow creatures and of humble communion with his
God." 4 He used Aristotle's division of oratory into demonstrative, de-
liberative, and judicial, and he added pulpit oratory.

In accordance with the instructions laid down by the Harvard Over-
seers in assigning the Boylston Professorship, Adams dealt in his lec-
tures with invention, disposition, style, and pronunciation (delivery).
His treatment of these canons was largely a restatement of the doctrines
of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian. The lectures do not treat delivery
to any great extent. He referred without enthusiasm to the works of
Sheridan and Walker in the field of elocution, and himself offered no
program for the training of voice and action. He does, however, give
rather explicit instructions as to the method of speech preparation.5

In conclusion, while Adams' lectures are for the most part a restate-
ment of classical doctrines, they indicate a tendency dn the part of some
American rhetoricians to break away from the complete reliance on the
English rhetorics. Unfortunately, however, they failed to re-establish
the classical trend as a major movement—as indicated by the tremen-
dous popularity of the elocutionary movement which was soon to
follow.

At about the same time that Adams' lectures were published, §amuel
Knox., the principal of Baltimore College, published A Compendious
System of Rhetoric. This was for the most part an abstract of the work
of Blair, with material on tropes arid figures 3ra.wn frpjqpi Jjol^Stirliiig's
System of Rhetoric (1770). A little book, arranged in catechetical form,
it touches upon all the divisions of rhetoric; but except for style the
treatment is superficial. It is significant only in that it indicates the pre-
occupation with style and composition characteristic of many of the
early nineteenth-century writers and teachers. Although the works of

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 131

Blair and Campbell, with their essentially classical interpretations, were
dominant in American colleges at this time, Knox defined rhetoric as
"the art of speaking and writing, in every species of style and composi-
tion, agreeably to the most approved taste, and literary improvement
in language." 6 It was probably this emphasis on style and composition,
seen also in the works of such early nineteenth century writers as New-
man and Channing, that paved the way for the elocution movement of
the middle part of the century which virtually divorced delivery from
the other aspects of rhetoric.

Samuel JP.h Newman's A Practical System of Rhetoric, published in
1827, was the first American rhetoric to be used widely in the schools.
It replaced Jamieson's Grammar of Rhetoric and Polite Literature in
such American colleges as Bowdoin, Amherst, and Wesleyan. Newman
is almost entirely concerned with written composition; persuasion as
such forms no part of his rhetorical system. The instructions of rhetoric,
he says, are twofold: "those which point out the excellencies of style,
and those which give cautions against its most frequent faults." 7

While this book offers little that is original, it is noteworthy in that
it is probably the first American rhetoric intended strictly as a text-
book, and as such is well written and supplied with ample illustrative
material. It should be noted, also, as a further step by Americans to-
ward developing an art of belles lettres distinct from elocution.

During the first half of the nineteenth century, the chairs of profes-
sor of rhetoric at three of America's leading colleges were held by men
who, while they did not publish their lectures in textbook form, were
presenting to their students rhetorical theories of remarkable balance
and scope. They were Porter at Andover Academy, Goodrich at Yale,
and Channing at Harvard. While it is difficult to assess the influence of
these men in determining the development of rhetorical theory in
America, it is certain that in their institutions, at least, they were highly
respected. They influenced many of the men who became leaders in
American life during the nineteenth century. Porter was also an impor-
tant figure in the development of elocution and homiletics.

Ebenezer Porter Lield the Baitlett Professorship of Sacred Rhetoric at
Andgver Academy from 1813 to 1831. His lectures on homiletics and
preaching were published in 1834, and his lectures on eloquence and
style were collected by Reverend Matthews and published in 1836. 8
Like Adams at Harvard, Porter was required by the rules of his office
to discuss certain specified subjects, including the importance of ora-
tory, and the principles of invention, disposition, style, and delivery.
Like Adams, also, PoxtQrj treatment of the^cg^Qns pf rhetoric is-©ssen-
tially classical, leaning heavily on Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian;
and o^CSm^'eS and Blair among the moderns. Except for style and

132 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

delivery, the divisions of rhetoric are treated briefly. Style is treated
rather fully, with the material coming almost entirely from Quintilian,
Longinus, Campbell, and Blair. Delivery is discussed in seven of the
lectures, and reveals Porter as an adherent of the Walker school.

From 1817 to 1839, Chauncey Allen Goodrich was Professor of
Rhetoric at Yale University. His lectures, not published in the nine-
teenth century, probably had little direct influence on the development
of rhetorical theory and training outside of Connecticut. His book
Select British Eloquence, however, was read widely both in this coun-
try and in England; and in the course of his careful rhetorical criticism
of the twenty orators, ranging from Sir John Eliot to Lord Brougham,
he included most of the precepts covered in his lectures at Yale. Al-
though we are not directly concerned here with criticism as such, it is
noteworthy that Goodrich was the first rhetorical critic to recognize
clearly the necessity for developing an adequate biographical-historical
setting for the evaluation of a speech or a speaker. His clear delineation
of the social forces which produce and are in turn molded by great
speakers set a pattern for rhetorical criticism which is common today.

Goodrich's lectures are essentially classical in conception and scope,
although he rarely refers to the classical rhetoricians. His lectures fall
easily into the traditional divisions.

Public speaking, Goodrich said, is of utmost importance to the indi-
vidual and to society. In no country, he pointed out, "is the power of
impressing thought on others through the medium of language so con-
trolling in its influence as here." 9 That Goodrich did not approve of
the separation of delivery from the other parts of rhetoric by the elocu-
tionists of his day is seen in the following paragraph from one of his
introductory lectures:

The end of pubMc speaking is not to be eloquent. I say this because an
error on this subject has had great influence in corrupting eloquence—pecul-
iarly in this country, because men are here peculiarly dependent on public
speaking. It has produced a tendency to speak for the sake for delivery, of
attracting the attention of constituents, of establishing a reputation for elo-
quence. But this attitude always defeats its object, produces unnatural lan-
guage, strained sentiments, etc.10

Although his lectures contain no subdivision entitled "invention,"
Goodrich does, in various places, deal with choice of subject, sources
of ideas and arguments, techniques of collecting evidence, tests of
arguments and evidence, methods of adapting to audience interests,
and techniques of making the speaker appear "wise" and "good." xl

More than any American rhetorician of the nineteenth century, with
the possible exception of Charming at Harvard, Goodrich was a student
of philosophy, and to his total concept of invention may be added his

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 133

significant discussion of the mental faculties which produce the great
speaker. The great end of education, he says, is "to subject our faculties
both intellectual and physical to a rigid course of discipline . . . making
every power the ready and active instrument of the will. . . ." 12 Certain
mental phenomena which had by various writers been designated
"original" mental faculties are defined and analyzed. These include:
abstraction, comprehension, generalization, judgment, reason, imagina-
tion, taste, and belief. Although his descriptions of these powers follow
closely the work of the Scottish philosophers, Reid and Stewart, he
differs from them in concluding that most of them are really laws of
mental action, rather than original mental faculties.13

Goodrich's treatment of language and style reveals many of the
ideas of Blair and Campbell, with some interesting additions of his
own. Good style, for Goodrich, consists of any easy and perspicuous use
of language, with energy of thought and richness of imagination.14 His
interest in lexicography led him to a careful study of etymology and of
pronunciation standards.15

The "moral and intellectual principles of our nature" Goodrich con-
siders most important for the student orator, but the cultivation of style
and elocution are scarcely less important.16 His treatment of delivery
was essentially classical, with the addition of some attention to the
separate discipline of elocution popular at the time. He would definitely
be in the "think-the-thought" or "natural" tradition in delivery as repre-
sented in his day by the teachings of Sheridan.17

Goodrich's contemporary at Harvard University was Ijldward T.
Channing^ J3oylston Professor of Rhetoric from 1819 to 1852. Channing
did not publish his lectures until after his retirement, and he wrote no
systematic treatise on the theory of rhetoric. His influence on many of
the outstanding speakers and writers of the nineteenth century was
undoubtedly of considerable importance, however, and his theory of
rhetoric is well worth examining.

Channing is especially interesting to the student of the history of
rhetorical theory for his rather unusual concept of the nature and mean-
ing of rhetoric. At a time when there was a definite trend toward the
separation of style and invention from delivery, on the one hand, and
belles lettres on the other, the Harvard teacher's concept of rhetoric
included aspects of all three. RhgJonCpJie believed, was the fundamen-
tal art of communication, and its principles applied BdtK to speech and
to writing. As he stated if: " """"""*

I am inclined to consider rhetoric when reduced to a system in books, as a
body of rules derived from experience and observation, extending to all com-
munication by language and designed to make it efficient. It does not ask
whether a man is to be a speaker or writer,— a poet, philosopher, or debator;

134 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

but simply,— is it his wish to be put in the right way of communicating his
mind with power to others, by words spoken or written.18

Belles lettres, in the sense of appreciation of the forms of writing, and
analysis of their beauty, was specifically omitted from Channing's con-
cept. Rhetoric, he said, "leaves this field of criticism to other laborers,
and limits its inspection of general literature to the purpose of ascer-
taining and illustrating the essentials of accurate and forcible expres-
sion in all good composition." 19

In spite of this rather unusual definition of the scope of rhetoric,
however, Channing lectured on all the classical canons of rhetoric. He
outlined the duties of rhetoric as being the analysis and explanation of
the style or method of persuasive address, instruction in finding and
arranging arguments, instruction in speaking, and instruction in the
principles of composition or good style.20

An interesting point of difference between Channing and Goodrich
was the former's distrust of the use of models by the student orator.
"Minds of common cast may profit by reading and obeying, but genius
suffers." 21 Goodrich, on the other hand, was a strong advocate of the
use of models— particularly the classical orators— in the training of
speakers. Yet Goodrich, like Channing, was interested in faculty psy-
chology, and in particular the work of Thomas Reid. Like his Yale
contemporary, Channing believed that the rhetorician was concerned
with the development of the various faculties of the mind. His lectures
do not include a systematic survey of the faculties; he asserted only
that one purpose of rhetoric was to strengthen man's natural powers.22

Channing recognized more clearly than any nineteenth-century rheto-
rician that the orator should not be a leader of the multitude, but rather
should be considered "one of the multitude, deliberating with them
upon common interests, which are well understood and valued by
all." 23 This view of the speaker, held the Harvard professor, does not
reduce the "true dignity and resources of the art," 24

In 1822, E. G. Welles published a small book of fifty-six pages entitled
The Orators Guide; or rules for speaking and composing; fyom the best
authorities. This bobk, whfle it offers nothing new, is interesting as an
indication of the growing attentiqn4 in America to voice aad, gesture as
separate problems., Welles was primarily interested in gesture and
action, which he called pronunciation after the terminology of the
classical rhetoricians. He quotes Cicero, Demosthenes, and Quintilian,
out of context, to show that "Pronunciation, which was also called
action, was considered by the most competent judges among the

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 135

ancients, as the primary part o£ an Orator's province— as almost the only
source from which he can hope to succeed, in the art of persuasion." 25
The almost absurd artificiality of Welles' concept of gesture may be
indicated in his own words:

The several motions of the body ought to be accommodated to the various
tones and inflections of the voice. When the voice is even, and moderate, little
gesture is required; and nothing can be more improper, than violent motion,
in discoursing upon ordinary and familiar subjects. The motion of the body
should rise, therefore, in proportion to the vehemence and energy of the
sentiment, and appear to be the natural and genuine effect of it.26

Possibly the first book by an American bearing the title of rhetoric
buf devoted exclusively to writing rather than speaking was the Ele-
ments of Rhetoric and Literary Criticism., compiled and arranged by
James K. Boyd, Principal of Jefferson County Institute. This book paid
not even lip service to the tradition of rhetoric in the classical sense.
That it represented a fairly common conception of the extent and scope
of rhetorical training at the time is indicated by the fact that, first pub-
lished in 1844, it had gone through six editions by 1848.

Boyd expressed his belief that "the labors of teachers in all our schools
are directed too exclusively to the securing of correct habits in speaking
and reading the language; and that altogether too limited an amount of
time and share of attention are employed in teaching the art of cor-
rectly writing the language." 27 It is interesting to note Boyd's state-
ment that "the habit of writing much with accuracy would greatly aid
us, also, in speaking the language with accuracy and elegance/' 28

Part III of the book, devoted to a discussion of the different kinds of
composition, discusses very briefly the traditional six parts of an ora-
tion. The remainder of the book is devoted to grammar, style, composi-
tion, the history of the English language, and a brief review of modern
British and American literature.

Also in 1844 was published a very interesting translation from the
German of Dr. Francis Theremin's Eloquence A Virtue; or, Outlines of
a Systematic Rhetoric. William G. T. Shedd, the translator, was profes-
sor of English literature at the University of Vermont. His free transla-
tion of Theremin's work, his excellent preface, and his advocacy may
have influenced American views of rhetoric.

In the preface Shedd restated the philosophical justification for rheto-
ric and presented the thesis that the end of rhetoric must be moral. The
state of rhetoric at the time, he felt, called for an "infusion" of the moral
element found in Theremin's treatise:

Rhetoric, in its best estate, is but the science of Form, or, to use Milton's

phrase, an 'organic'— i.e. instrumental—Art Dissevered from Logic, or the

necessary laws of Thought, it has become dissevered from the seat of life,

136 KHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

and has degenerated into a mere collection of rules respecting the structure
of sentences and the garnish of expression.29

Theremin insisted that, while the means employed by eloquence may
be aesthetic and the form in which it appears artistic, the great end
constantly aimed at must be moral, and only moral. Shedd believed that
here was a rhetoric "that is not only formative and plastic, but organific,
and has thus superinduced life upon the lifeless." 30

Theremin's treatment of invention is particularly interesting. The
purpose of eloquence, he held, was to "produce a change in the senti-
ments and conduct of other men." This being the case, "the inquiry after
its fundamental principles, therefore, becomes changed quite naturally
into this: what are the laws according to which a free being may exert
influence upon other free beings? And the answer to this question can
be derived only from ethics." 31

Against this background, Theremin formulated the highest law of
elocjuence; "Ttte particular idea wliich the orator wishes to realize is
carried back to the necessary ideas of the hearer.'* These necessary
'Ideas" he defined broadly as being Duty, Virtue, and Happiness.32 The
orator, then, to connect the premises of his speech with these innate
moral urges must conform to three subordinate methods or categories:
Truth, showing that his idea is in fact Duty, Virtue, or Happiness; Pos-
sibility, showing that his idea is practicable; and Actuality, showing
that his idea actually exists or the event has happened.

Theremin's system of invention and arrangement, though based on
this ethical analysis, follows the general line of classical theory, and
includes a discussion of the speaker's ethos, and the means of exciting
the affections.

In addition to editing Theremin, Shedd did some lecturing and writ-
ing of his own on rhetoric. His most extensive statement is found in an
inaugural address at Auburn Theological Seminary entitled "The Char-
acteristics, and Importance of a Natural Rhetoric." Because its appro-
priate subject matter is the form of a discourse, rhetoric is especially
liable to formalism and artificiality.33 He appeals, therefore, for a
rhetoric "that educates like nature. ... a Rhetoric that organizes and
vitalizes the material that is made over to it for purposes of form. . . ." 34

HenogLjfcLJBlSJ^ a contemporary of Shedd, was another American
rhetojician who made '"sosoe original* €Oi^ the

iro^^lttte In the preface of his first work, Elements of the Art

of Rhetoric, published in 1850, Day stated what he believed to be his
contribution:

First, Invention is treated as a distinct and primary department of the art
of Rhetoric. From most English treatises this department has been generally

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 137

excluded: and rhetoric has been generally regarded as confined almost ex-
clusively to style.35

Day objected to Whately's concept of rhetoric because he felt the Eng-
lish writer confined himself to "mere argumentative composition, or the
art of producing Belief." This view, he felt, excluded aU "Explanatory
Discourse" as well as all "Persuasion/' His own system included expla-
nation, conviction, excitation, and persuasion as the "possible immediate
objects of all discourse/'
Rhetoric, according to Day, is "the art of discourse."

The proper province of Rhetoric, as also its specific relations to other arts
and sciences, are determined at once by the faculty which it immediately and
exclusively respects,—the faculty of discourse, or the capacity in man of com-
municating his mental states to other minds by means of language.36

Although he discussed disposition briefly, Day ruled out delivery from
his treatment of rhetoric and confined himself almost entirely to inven-
tion and style. The success of the elocutionists in establishing a separate
discipline in this country by the middle of the century is evidenced by
Day's statement about delivery:

The art of rhetoric cannot in strictness be regarded as having accomplished
its end until the mental states to be communicated are actually conveyed to
the mind addressed. It, therefore, may properly comprehend delivery.

The mode of communication, however, is not essential. The thought may
be conveyed by the pen or by the voice. Elocution, or the vocal expression of
thought, is not accordingly a necessary part of rhetoric.37

Rhetorical invention as such was defined by Day as "the art of sup-
plying the requisite thought in kind and form for discourse." 3S It em-
braced, therefore, disposition, as well as invention proper. The parts of
invention were determined by his analysis of the ends or objects of
discourse, and were stated concisely:

The process by which a new conception is produced, is by Explanation;
that by which a new judgment is produced is by Confirmation. A change in
the sensibilities is affected by the process of Excitation; and in the will, by
that of Persuasion.39

More than most of his contemporaries, Day was solidly in the classical
tradition of purposive rhetoric. His unusual emphasis on the importance
of directing discourse to a specific end, and selecting and arranging
materials most effectively to accomplish that end marks him as one of
the few original thinkers of his century.

Style, the other "great department" of rhetoric, Day thought to have
certain absolute qualities, such as oral properties, suggestive proper-
ties, grammatical properties, subjective properties (which included sig-

138 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

nificance and naturalness), and objective properties (which included
clearness, energy, and elegance.)40 Although his discussion of these
properties was not original, he did a much better job than most rhetori-
cians of the century of relating them to the various kinds of discourse.

The^next work on rhetoric to appear in America was Matthew Boyd
Hope's Princeton Textbook in Rhetoric, published in 1859. The Prince-
ton professor of rhetoric wrote his textbook in part to replace Whately.
Whately's Rhetoric, Hope felt, was inadequate for his students "in the
matter of their Belles Lettres culture" and Whately's work on elocu-
tion he found "not only inferior in its method and handling, but posi-
tively, and mischievously erroneous, in its theoretical principles, and
consequently in its practical precepts." 41

The art of rhetoric, the Princeton professor believed, differed from
other arts in that "it uses articulate language as its proper instrument";
and "it has for its special object: 1, to convince, and 2, to persuade." The
difference between conviction and persuasion was that "the former,
(conviction) is an effect upon the under$tanding,—the intellectual or
logical faculties,— the latter, (persuasion) is an effect upon the will,
producing a change either of character, or conduct. . . ." 42

Hope's treatment of conviction does not differ significantly from
Whately's. Persuasion, also, is treated in much the same way as the
English rhetorician's, except that some influence of Shedd's translation
of Theremin is apparent in Hope's placing of persuasion in the domain
of ethics and insisting upon a high ethical standard of persuasion.

Like Day, Channing, Goodrich, and others of his contemporaries,
Hope was strongly influenced by faculty psychology, and his analysis
of the psychological conditions in persuasion, while not original, was
more specific than most. Persuasion, he said, rests upon "the presence
of some motive principle, in the active constitution of the human spirit,
—and reaches the will, by kindling some desire, for the attainment of its
object,— and 2, the conviction of the understanding, that the means
proposed in persuasion, promise to attain the end." 4B These two condi-
tions, Hope said, constituted a motive; and since man is a moral being,
free and self -moved, it is by motives, in the described sense, that he is
governed. His classification of the "motive principles to human action"
implied in moral freedom is fairly specific, and probably quite repre-
sentative of the thinking of most of his contemporaries.

The Princeton professor discussed arrangement or disposition in con-
nection with persuasion and conviction; he wrote of style and elocution
as less essential but "tributary to the end sought in rhetoric." 44 His
treatment of style is brief and does not add materially to the work of
Blair and Whately. As essential properties of effective style he dis-
cussed clearness, force, and beauty.

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 139

The treatment of elocution is also fairly brief and drawn from the
work of Rush, whom Hope greatly admired. Austin's Chironomia is
credited as the primary source of his brief discussion of action, although
the influence of Whately is quite apparent in his summary statement
about gestures: "Study the sentiment, and enter into the emotion, of
what you wish to say; then be natural, earnest, simple, and as graceful
as possible." 45

Following the publication of Hope's work, there were no more Amer-
ican rhetorics until 1867, when A Manual of the Art of Prose Composi-
tion by John Mitchell Bonnell was published, This was primarily a book
orreomposition dealing with style and with invention. There are also
chapters on argument and one on the oration. Mostly a distillation of
Blair, it offers little that is original, and is interesting chiefly as an ex-
ample of the extent to which the delivery and the composition of
speeches had become separate disciplines in America.

The following year, 1868, an interesting little book by William Pitten-
ger gjtiJ^led^jOmtOT.U $flcT®A $nd Secular: or, the Extemporaneous
Speaker was published. This was not so much an attempt to formulate
a sysfSaatic theory as it was to set forth the outlines of a practical
course pjjraining for an orator. The prerequisites for being a success-
ful orator, Pittenger said, were intellectual competency, strength of
body, command of language, courage, firmness, and self-reliance. Some
very general, and probably not very practical, rules are offered for
acquiring these characteristics. Part III, "Secular Oratory," simply
describes very briefly the different types of address: instructive, deliber-
ative, legal, controversial, and popular.

Although he published no work on rhetoric, Ralph Waldo Emerson
should be included in the list of Americans who contributed to the
development of rhetorical theory. Occasional comments on rhetorical
theory are found scattered throughout his writing; and in 1870 and
again in 187? he published essays, both entitled "Eloquence," in which
he set forth his views on the subject.

Emerson defined eloquence as "the power to translate a truth into
language perfectly intelligible to the person to whom you speak." 46
Reminiscent of his general transcendentalist philosophy is the interest-
ing belief that every man, if properly stimulated, can rise above his
mundane weaknesses, and become for the moment an orator. This latent
or potential talent also, he said, accounts for the fact that assemblies of
men are "susceptible/' "The eloquence of one stimulates all the rest,
some up to the speaking-point and all others to a degree that makes
them good receivers and conductors. . . ." 47

Emerson also contributed some ideas on audience analysis which
reveal great insight. In every public assembly, he said, there are many

140 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

audiences, "each of which rules in turn," 48 All of these audiences, how-
ever, "which successively appear to greet the variety of style and
topic," 49 are the same persons-the same individual sometimes taking
active part in them all.

He stressed the importance of accurate knowledge and personal
force. The orator, he said, must first have "power of statement,— must
have the fact and know how to tell it." 50

Next in importance he placed "method," by which he apparently
meant what was called dispositio by the classical rhetoricians: "The
orator possesses no information which his hearers have not, yet he
teaches them to see the thing with his eyes. By the new placing, the cir-
cumstances acquire new solidity and worth." 51

Imagery also is considered important both as an aid to effectiveness
and an aid to memory. Nothing, he said, "so works on the human mind,
barbarous or civil, as a trope." 52

Such separate parts, however, do not constitute eloquence. For
genuine eloquence the speaker must be "sane," by which he meant that
the speaker must be able to control his powers; and also there must be
"a reinforcing of man from events, so as to give the double force of
reason and destiny." 53

A rhetorical handbook of 75 pages entitled The Outlines of Rheto-
ric was published in 1877. Joseph H. Gilmore, the author, was a pro-
fessor of rhetoric at the University of Rochester. It is a closely packed,
carefully prepared outline of rhetorical theories oiTS^ention and style.
Written in the form of questions and answers, it quotes liberally from
Aristotle, Whately, Campbell, Theremin, and Blair.

Though it probably adds nothing new to rhetorical theory, Gilm'ore's
book is worthy of mention for its rather novel style and unusual clarity
and conciseness of expression. The following quotation will serve to
show the method and style of the book:

1. Define Rhetoric according to the view of Aristotle— Whately— Campbell.
Which definition are you inclined to adopt, and why?

Aristotle regards Rhetoric as the Art of Persuasion; Whately, as the Art of
Conviction; Campbell, as the Art of Discourse. Campbell's definition is to be
preferred as more comprehensive than either of the others; although Aristotle
justly emphasizes the most vital object of all Rhetorical study.54

In 1879, George JL Raymond published 1^

book is iatheeloctitlDn traditfon,*an^eais primarily, with three aspects
of defireryi '"xtwce eidture? emphasis (time, pitch, force, volume), and
gesture. It is of interest here because it included a seventeen-page
appendix called "Hints for the Composition of Orations." It might be
said, therefore, to represent the beginning of the reunion of delivery

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 141

and composition of speeches which took place toward the end of the
nineteenth century and has continued in the present century.

A two-volume work, The Art of Speech, by L. T. Townsend was pub-
lished in 1880. It was used, among other places, at De Pauw University,
and was reported to have had great influence on the career of Albert
Beveridge.

Volume I, "Studies in Poetry and Prose," contains an interesting
account of the origin and history of speech. Townsend, who was a pro-
fessor of rhetoric in Boston University, concluded that "Human speech
is both God-given and from human invention/' 55 He struck a dis-
tinctly contemporary note by saying that thought is essentially "interior
speech." Style, also considered in Volume I, is mostly drawn from Blair.

Volume II, "Studies in Eloquence and Logic," discusses definitions of
oratory and eloquence by Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, Macaulay, Bau-
tain, and Emerson. Townsend concludes that Eloquence as an art "is
such a representation of thought in vocal, written, or gesture language,
as is adapted to persuade. The aim in eloquence is to persuade the will
and the moral faculties, rather than -merely to convince the judg-
ment." 5G Chapters IV through VII of the second volume contain a
series of "Inferences" drawn from an analysis of Demosthenes' orations.
In rather sketchy and poorly organized form, these chapters contain a
fairly complete system of rhetoric, including invention, disposition,
style, and delivery.

In the same year, 1880, Rhetoric^as an Art of Persuasion . . . from the
standpoint of a lawyer was published. The frontispiece lists the author
as "An Old Lawyer." His name was Qaniel F. Miller, In the preface
Miller stated that he had "studied many American and English authors
on the subject of rhetoric, but found nothing in them to compare in
usefulness and thoroughness of instruction to Quintilian's Institutes of
Oratory." His system of rhetoric is lately a condensation of QumtHian
with some influencejrom Cicero.

Ttioxigri it offers little that could be called original, this work is note-
worthy in at least two respects. In the first place, it is written in a very
colloquial style and contains many interesting "asides" which occa-
sionally show considerable insight. As one instance of this, in discussing
induction he says that Bacon is credited with developing inductive
reasoning, and Aristotle with developing the syllogism. Actually, said
Miller, neither is true, induction being "the common vernacular of
human speech, and, besides, there are plenty of books extant which
contain numberless instances of the use both of the inductive and syl-
logistic styles of argument, written ages before the name of either
Bacon or Aristotle adorned the pages of history." 57

The other notable feature of this book is the inclusion of a great many

142 RHETOBIC, ELOCUTION., AND SPEECH

examples and illustrations drawn largely from Quintilian, Lincoln, J. F.
Dillon, Cicero, Plato, Erskine, Curran, Henry Clay, and Webster.

As might be expected, Miller does a good job of stating the principles
and methods of invention and disposition, but the treatment of style
is poorly organized, being mostly a listing of numerous figures of speech
with illustrations.

Ill

Adams Sherman Hill, Boylston Professor of Rhetoric at Harvard,
publish^his Principles of Rhetoric in 1878. It is perhaps of interest
chiefly because it indicates the extent to which the Boylston Professor-
ship had come to deal with the written rather than the spoken word.
Hill defined rhetoric as "the art of efficient communication by" lan-
guage/'58 and although he does include the speaker as well as the
writer in his concept, the book is addressed to the writer, with not even
a discussion of "oratory" or public speaking in any form.

Part I of the book deals with "Composition in General/' and takes up
grammatical purity and choice of words. Part II deals with "Kinds of
Composition/' and takes up only three kinds: narrative, descriptive, and
argumentative. None of this material seems to offer the student any-
thing different from that found in Whately, Bair, and numerous other
sources which were available at the time.

The subject of "Persuasion" is disposed of by Hill in seven pages as
a subtopic of argumentative composition. To influence the "will/' Hill
said, it is necessary to influence the "active principles" of a man's
nature.59 He does not specify what these principles are, but recom-
mends one of two courses: we may "dwell upon topics which are likely
to call out the feelings" we wish to excite; or we may "express our own
feelings in such a way as to communicate them to others." 60 In connec-
tion with the latter method he quotes from Aristotle to stress the im-
portance of the speaker's reputation.

The Ele^nU ^of Rhetoric, by James De Mille, was published in 1882.
This isTSi imposing work of 564 £a^es, very similar in scope and method
to Hill's Principles of Rhetoric. Unlike Hill, however, De Mille includes
a bx|ef , discussion of oratory as one jof^tibe "General t>epartaienS^I)f
literature"; the six other departments being description, narration,
exposition, dialog^^^irama, and poetry.

The study of rhetoric, DeTWille said, "may be regarded as an ana-
lytical examination of literature." 61 Parts I, II, and III, comprising over
half the book, take up style. Part IV, "Method," is a treatment of inven-
tion, largely along Aristotelian lines. Part V discusses the "Emotions'*
under such headings as "The Beautiful/' "The Sublime/' and "The

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 143

Ridiculous." Part VI takes up the "Departments of Literature" referred
to above.

In the chapter dealing with oratory De Mille treats of the "Tactics of
Oratory," which probably represents his chief contribution. These
"tactics/' he said, may be defined as "special devices employed by ora-
tors for the sake of persuading their hearers." 62 The following tactics
are discussed: conciliation, emphasis, explanation, answers to objec-
tions, artifices, attack, defense, display of feeling. While this material
is drawn directly from Aristotle and Cicero, De Mille illustrates it with
examples drawn chiefly from British orators.63 The examples suggest a
fairly close acquaintanceship with Goodrich's Select British Eloquence.

The last major work of the century which attempted to present a
complete system of rhetoric was John Franklin Genung's The Practical
Elements of Rhetoric, published inTM6rHe"prepared a revision of the
wdrfc in 1900 which he called The Wdrking Principles of Rhetoric. An
examination of the two works, however, fails to reveal any significant
differences, and this discussion will deal only with the earlier work.

Like most of his contemporaries, Genung, who was Professor of
Rhetoric at Amherst College, had acc^tedAa^epaTation of voice and
delivery from rhetoric proper. Accordingly his book has two parts:

(3eames's, force, and beauty are the essential qualities of style. Its
controlling principle Genung draws from Herbert Spencer: "the central
principle of a good style lies in the economizing of the reader s atten-
tion." 64

Genung's treatment of invention, while essentially classical in con-
ception, represents a fairly original approach. He first discusses the
"Basis in Mental Aptitudes and Habits," pointing out that while inven-
tion is to some extent a natural gift, it can be cultivated by the develop-
ment of habits of "Observation," "Thought," and "Reading." 65

The "General Processes in the Ordering of Material" are considered
next under the headings of "Determination of the Theme," "Construc-
tion of the Plan," and "Amplification " 66

He then takes up Description, which he calls "Invention dealing with
Observed Objects"; Narration, "Invention dealing with Events"; Expo-
sition, "Invention dealing with Generalizations"; Argumentation, "In-
vention dealing with Truths"; and Persuasion, "Invention dealing with
Practical Issues." 67 In the first four of these divisions, Genung is ad-
dressing primarily the writer; and in the last division he is addressing the
speaker, for persuasion "is so predominantly the work of oral com-
munication," it "presupposes a speaker at close quarters with his
audience." 6S

Genung's development of the principles of persuasion, while again

144 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

classical in conception, rests upon the idea of Bain that to be a persua-
sive speaker, "it is necessary to have vividly present to the view all the
leading impulses and convictions of the persons addressed, and be
ready to catch at every point of identity between these and the propo-
sitions or projects presented for their adoption." 69 In addition to Bain?
Genung draws material from many of his contemporaries— notably
Emerson and Henry Ward Beecher.

The last work of the nineteenth century to be considered here is not
strictly speaking a treatise on rhetorical theory. The Principles of Pub-
lic Speaking, by Guy Carleton Lee, was published in 1899. It is probably
the first book by an American which could properly be called a "speech"
book in the modern sense. That is, it is primarily a book of advice and
suggestions on how to do such things as improve the voice, have better
bodily response, read aloud, prepare and deliver a speech, and take
part in a debate. There is a small amount of theory included, but for
the most part it is too fragmentary to be consistent.

While most of the material, particularly that dealing with voice and
gesture, would seem very artificial and impractical to the contemporary
student of speech, it is worth observing that by the end of the century
at least one professor of rhetoric had gathered together all the canons
of rhetoric and had attempted to formulate a consistent field of study
under the heading of "Public Speaking."

In conclusion, it may be said that while the nineteenth century did
not produce a notable advance in the theory of rhetoric, it did contrib-
ute some excellent restatements of the classical doctrines. The most
significant American contributions were probably the applications of
the principles of faculty psychology to rhetoric by such men as Good-
rich, Channing, Day, Hope, and Genung; and the application of the
principles of ethics to rhetoric by Shedd. The classical tradition of
rhetoric as a complete field of study including all the canons was repre-
sented in the century by Witherspoon, Adams, Porter, Goodrich, Chan-
ning, Shedd, Hope, and, to some extent, Emerson, Townsend, and Lee.
The principal writers who had accepted the separation of delivery from
the other canons and centered their attention on Invention and Style
were Knox, Newman, Boyd, Day, Bonnell, Hill, De Mille, and Genung.

A consideration of the development of rhetorical theory in the nine-
teenth century would not be complete without considering homiletics.
Many of the outstanding rhetoricians of the period— including men like
Witherspoon, Adams, Goodrich, Channing, and Porter— were also homi-
leticians. The definition of homiletics most widely accepted, further-

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 145

more, treated it as a special branch or application of rhetoric. Shedd,
for example, defined homiletics as "the term that has been chosen to
denote the application of the principles of rhetoric to preaching. It is
synonymous, consequently, with Sacred Rhetoric." 70 One major excep-
tion to this definition should be noted. George Hervey, in 1873, pub-
lished his very interesting System of Christian Rhetoric 71 in which he
constructed an elaborate system based solely on the Bible.

To give a detailed account of the treatment of each of the leading
figures of the century would not be practical for our present purpose.
Instead, the broad outlines of homiletical theory will be briefly sketched.

The purpose or goal of preaching underwent a definite change in the
course of the century. At the beginning of the century, conviction and
persuasion, considered as separate tasks, were quite commonly accepted
as the preacher's primary goal. Tappan, for example, regarded persua-
sion as the end of all preaching.72 John Q. Adams, on the other hand,
said that the "means" of the sermon "are persuasion; its object, to oper-
ate upon the will of the hearers; its results, to produce action." 73 In the
early years of the century, especially, there was a trend away from the
debate-brief type of sermon which stressed "conviction." Channing, for
example, stated that preachers "have addressed men as creatures of
mere intellect; they have forgotten that the affections are essential to
our nature, that reason and sensibility must operate together or we shall
never act with perseverance and vigor." 74 Porter also objected to the
debate-brief arrangement with its "applications," "uses," "propositions,"
"inferences," "counsels," and "reflections." That he was thinking in terms
of the traditional conviction-persuasion goal is indicated, however, by
his advocating the classical arrangement for the sermon: exordium,
proposition, division, discussion or argument, and conclusion.75

Early in the century, however, instruction as a goal or purpose in
preaching began to be emphasized. As early as 1800 Kirkland had stated
that instruction is the first branch of the preacher s task. What revela-
tion teaches concerning the origin, nature and destiny of man, that the
preacher must explain.76 Emmons expressed a growing belief when he
said that to preach is to instruct and to instruct is generally to explain.77
The controversy over doctrines, especially between the liberal and con-
servative Congregationalists, made it necessary for preachers to explain
these doctrines clearly, and probably gave added weight to instruction
as a goal.

Throughout the century doctrinal subjects were most universally in
demand. Witherspoon's Introductory Lectures on Divinity, for example,
take up the doctrine of the fall of man, sin, the covenant of grace, and
kindred subjects.78 Toward the end of the century a few authorities
were recommending practical or ethical subjects— foreshadowing the

146 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

twentieth-century concept that the minister should try to interpret the
social and ethical problems of the day in the light of Christian prin-
ciples. The great majority of authorities throughout the century, how-
ever, agreed with the statement of Edwards of Andover: "Sacred Elo-
quence is the art of speaking well on sacred subjects. These are subjects
which relate to God, to Jesus Christ, to the Holy Ghost, to the souls of
men, and to eternity/' 79

Most of the homileticians of this century discussed disposition as an
essential part of their complete systems. Witherspoon, in the early
period, had the most extensive discussion of it, pointing out that out-
lining is an aid to the memory as well as adding beauty, brevity, and
force to the sermon.80 Throughout the century, and particularly in the
latter half of it, the textual type of sermon was most widely used. A
representative statement of homiletic opinion is that of Spurgeon:
"Although in many cases topical sermons are . . . very proper, those ser-
mons which expound the exact words of the Holy Spirit are the most
useful and the most agreeable to the major part of our congregations." 81
Of disposition in this type of sermon, Pattison said, "The flavor of the
text is everywhere to be detected in the sermon, as the breath of the
pine forest is in every fir cone taken from it." S2 Analysis of the text to
find its exact meaning is the first step recommended, to be followed by
the formulation of a theme. Some authorities defined the theme as "the
discourse condensed," it being essentially the "germ" of the sermon.
Others agreed with Shedd that the theme is "an enunciation of the par-
ticular truth to be established in the sermon." 83 Division of the text or
theme is the next step generally recommended by homileticians for this
century. Divisions, said Hoppin, are "simply the different parts in which
the main subject is formally separated or discussed." 84 Kidder, for
example, quoted from Cicero, "It is chiefly order that gives distinctness
to memory" to prove that breaking up the theme helps both the preacher
and the listener to remember the sermon.85

The principles of division developed by the nineteenth-century homi-
leticians were in agreement with the ones developed by logicians: no
division should be coextensive with the subject; all together the divisions
should exhaust the proposition; a single principle of division should be
used.86

The nineteenth-century homileticians were much interested in the
problem of sermon style. The separation of delivery from the aspects of
invention, disposition, and style, which was going on at the beginning
of the century probably contributed to this interest. The major writers
of the period agreed with Channing that the sermon "must not be set
forth and tricked out in the light drapery of artificial rhetoric, in pretti-
ness of style, in measured sentences, with an insipid floridness, and the

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 147

form of elegantly feeble essays." 87 Witherspoon, of the early writers,
offered the most complete discussion of style, devoting five chapters to
the three forms of style: the sublime, simple, and mixed.

The different interpretations of the meaning of style found among
secular rhetoricians is also encountered among the homileticians. Hop-
pin, Etter, Fisk, and a few others held the position that the term "style"
includes both the thought and its expression: "Style is the general term
by which we designate the qualities of thought as expressed in lan-
guage." 8S Most authorities in this century, however, followed the clas-
sical doctrine which makes "style" much the same as "use of language."
Broadus' statement is representative of this group: "A man's style, then,
is his characteristic manner of expressing his thoughts, whether in writ-
ing or in speech." 89 Indicative of the emphasis placed on style is the
further statement by Broadus that style "is the glitter and polish of the
warrior's sword, but it is also its keen edge. It can render mediocrity
acceptable and even attractive, and power more powerful still, It can
make error seductive, while truth may lie unnoticed for want of its
aid." 90 Probably the outstanding treatment of style in the latter part of
the century was that of Phelps. His English Style in Public Discourse,
devoted especially to pulpit style, was widely accepted and used toward
the end of the century. Phelps listed seven properties of good style:
purity, meaning grammatical correctness; precision, which he distin-
guished from propriety (or purity) by saying: "Propriety is satisfied if
we write good English: precision demands such a choice of good Eng-
lish as shall express our meaning"; 91 individuality; perspicuity; energy;
elegance, which was synonymous with "beauty"; 92 and naturalness, by
which he meant "fitness"; and made the point that style should fit the
subject, the audience, and the occasion.

Bowling 93 and Taylor,94 writing in the middle part, and Hervey 95
in the latter part of the century, presented detailed discussions of the
value and technique of illustrative preaching, Dowling's The Power of
Illustration is a short book containing excellent examples of illustrations
of all kinds. It had wide use and probably added impetus to the trend
toward expository preaching mentioned previously. "The great advan-
tages," said Dowling, "resulting from the use of striking and vivid illus-
trations, are, that they serve (1) to attract and secure attention; (2) to
afford scope for copiousness and variety, in the exhibition of truths
which have long been familiar; (3) to impress the memory by their
point and force; and (4) to render complex and difficult subjects easy
and plain." 96

Of all the canons of rhetoric, delivery received probably the greatest
attention from homileticians during the nineteenth century. A few of
them, including such leaders as Porter,97 Ware,98 and Russell 99 wrote

148 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

texts wliicli dealt exclusively with the delivery aspects of preaching. In
general, the writers agreed that sincerity and naturalness were the pri-
mary requirements. Witherspoon advised his students to "study great
sincerity, try to forget every purpose but the very end of speaking infor-
mation and persuasion." 10° Dwight summarized his advice on delivery
by saying, "To preach acceptably demands all the characteristics already
insisted upon in this discourse; plainness, variety, boldness, solemnity,
earnestness, and affection." 101

From the beginning of the century, writers were pointing out the
stiffness and artificiality both in style and delivery brought about in
part at least by the practice of reading sermons. Griffin, for example,
felt that this "abuse" was introduced by "the practice of writing ser-
mons. The natural manner in which man addresses man is that which
prevails in conversation and in more animated forms of speech without
writing/' 102 Some of the earlier writers advocated extemporaneous
speaking as a remedy for this defect. Many, however, were slow to
accept this change. John Q. Adams was representative of those who took
a middle ground. He recognized that extemporized preaching may con-
tain more warmth, earnestness, and force; but, he warned, "the stream
which flows spontaneously, is almost always shallow, and runs forever
in the same channel." 103 And as late as 1898, Thomas Pattison sounded
much the same warning: "Undoubtedly extemporaneous speech is the
highest form of address. But let us beware before we adopt it as our
constant practice. The heights to which this method lifts us may usually
be very lofty, but the depth to which it sometimes sinks are well-nigh
unfathomable." 104 In 1824, however, Henry Ware published his Hints
on Extemporaneous Preaching., and most authorities from that time
accepted the belief that extempore delivery is, for most people, the most
desirable. Ware emphasized earnestness as the central problem for
effective delivery. Animation of manner, he said, will come if the
speaker is fully imbued with his subject. There will be "more of the
lighting up of the soul in the countenance and the whole mein, more
freedom and meaning in the gestures; the eye speaks, and the fingers
speak, and when the orator is so excited as to forget everything but the
matter on which his mind and feeling are acting, the whole body is
affected and helps to propagate his emotions to the hearers." 105

Porter's Analysis of the Principles of Rhetorical Delivery and Russell's
Pulpit Elo,cution are probably the most outstanding contributions by
homileticians to the new science of elocution. Although most writers
preferred to leave the actual teaching of elocution to the professional
elocutionists, they agreed with Broadus that speech exists only in the
act of speaking, and the sermon cannot be separated from its de-
livery.106 By the middle of the century, it was commonly agreed that

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 149

the voice can and should be developed and improved. As Kidder
observed, "It is a very inconsistent philosophy which would educate the
eye, the ear, the hand, and the brain, and yet refuse culture and train-
ing to the voice." 107

Homiletical theory in America received a rapid and full development
in the nineteenth century. Starting almost from scratch at the opening
of t£? century, the groundwork laid by men like John Witherspoon and
John Quincy Adams was rapidly developed by such scholars and teach-
ers as William Ellery Channing, Henry Ware, Ebenezer Porter, Henry
J. Ripley, William Taylor, John Dowling, George Hervey, William Rus-
sell, James Alexander, John Broadus, James Hoppin, Daniel Kidder,
Austin Phelps, and William G. T. Shedd. The application of the prin-
ciples of rhetoric to the art of preaching may be said to have been com-
pleted" by tEe end, of the century. The major development of the
twenfieOTcentury, a trend which was just beginning at the close of the
nineteenth, has been the changing conception of the purpose and func-
tion of preaching. To the hojnileticians of . the last century, the preacher
was an inspired individual whose function was primarily to interpret
f orTSTcongregation the Bible and the Church, with man's salvation as
the-grat Iirthfp^esefiJ: .century, this viewpoint., while it still exists, has
slo^y*given way to the conception of preaching as an interpretation by
the minister of his congregation's social and ethical problems in the
light 7>I Christian principles.

Notes

1. John Witherspoon, Lectures on Moral Philosophy and Eloquence, 3rd ed.
(Philadelphia, 1810), pp. 150-154. See also John P. Hoshor, "Lectures on Rhetoric
and Public Speaking by Chauncey Allen Goodrich/* Speech Monographs, XIV
(1947), 5-8.

2. Witherspoon, pp. 233-234.

3. John Q. Adams, Lectures on Rhetoric and Oratory (Cambridge, 1810), I,
253-254, and III, 317-319.

4. Ibid., I, 14.

5. Ibid., I, 230.

6. A Compendious System of Rhetoric (Baltimore, 1809), p. 3.

7. A Practical System of Rhetoric (Portland, 1827), p. 1.

8. Ebenezer Porter, Lectures on Eloquence and Style, ed. Rev. Lyman Mat-
thews (Andover, 1836).

9. Hoshor, p. 5.

10. Ibid., p. 5.

11. Ibid., p. 30.

12. See the unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (Iowa, 1947) by John P. Hoshor,
"The Rhetorical Theory of Chauncey Allen Goodrich," p. 110.

13. Ibid., pp. 51-71.

14. Chauncey Allen Goodrich, Select British Eloquence (New York, 1852), p.
209.

15. In 1846 and 1847, Goodrich revised both the unabridged and the abridged
editions of Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language. To his 1856 revi-

150 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

sion of the University edition of the same work he added an exhaustive treatise on
the principles of pronunciation.

16. Hoshor, p. 110.

17. Ibid., p. 129.

18. Edward T. Channing, Lectures Read to the Seniors in Harvard College
(Boston, 1856), p. 31.

19. Ibid., p. 41.

20. Ibid., p. 35-40.

21. Ibid., p. 203-204.

22. Edward T. Channing, "Philosophical Essays. By James Ogilvie," North
American Review, IV (March, 1817), 385, 386. See also Channing, Lectures, p. 31.

23. Channing, Lectures, p. 17.

24. Ibid., p. 20.

25. Orators Guide (Philadelphia, 1822), p. 5.

26. Ibid., p. 22.

27. Elements of Rhetoric and Literary Criticism, 6th ed. (New York, 1848),
p, ix.

28. Ibid., p. x.

29. William G. T. Shedd, trans. Eloquence A Virtue; or, Outlines of a Sys-
tematic Rhetoric, by Francis Theremin (New York, 1850), p. viii.

30. Ibid., p. TOX.

31. Eloquence a Virtue, p. 69.

32. Ibid.f p. 71.

33. In Discourses and Essays (Andover, 1859), p. 91.

34. Ibid., p. 92.

35. P. lii.

36. The Art of Discourse: A System of Rhetoric, 10th ed. (New York, 1867),
p. 4.

37. Ibid., p. 14.

38. Ibid.9 p. 41.

39. Ibid.9 p. 49.

40. Day, Elements, pp. 165-289.

41. Princeton Textbook in Rhetoric (Princeton, 1859), p. iv.

42. Ibid.9 p. 2.

43. Ibid.9 p. 84,
-44. Ibid.9 p. 2.

45. Ibid.9 p. 289.

46. In Emerson s Complete Works, Riverside ed. (Boston, 1875), VIII, 126.

47. Ibid., VII, 63.

48. Ibid., p. 67.

49. Ibid.9 p. 68.

50. Ibid.9 p. 85.

51. Ibid.9 p. 88.

52. Ibid., p. 89.

53. Ibid.9 p. 91.

54. The Outlines of Rhetoric (Rochester, New York, 1877), p. 3.

55. The Art of Speech (New York, 1880), I, 34.

56. Ibid.9 II, 13.

57. Rhetoric as an Art of Persuasion (Des Moines, Iowa, 1880), p. 45.

58. Principles of Rhetoric (New York, 1889), p. in.

59. Ibid., p. 237.

60. Ibid.9 p. 240.

61. The Elements of Rhetoric (New York, 1882), p. vi.

62. lbid.9 p. 76.

63. Ibid.9 p. 485-503.

64. Practical Elements of Rhetoric (New York, 1886), pp. 19-27.

65. Ibid., pp. 220-235.

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 151

66. Ibid., pp. 248-302.

67. Ibid., pp. 326-476.

68. Ibid., p. 449.

69. Ibid., p. 448.

70. Homiletics and Pastoral Theology (New York, 1867), p. 38.

71. (New York, 1873).

72. David N. Tappan, "A Sermon delivered at Kennebunk, September 3, 1800
at the Ordination of Reverend Nathaniel Fletcher," in Waterman Pamphlets, Vol.
128, Library of Congress.

73. Adams, Lectures, p. 330.

74. William Ellery Channing, "A Sermon Delivered at the Ordination of the

Reverend Ezra Stiles Gannett June 30, 1815," in Waterman Pamphlets, Vol. 3,

Library of Congress, p. 19.

75. Ebenezer Porter, Lectures on Homiletics and Preaching, and on Public
Prayer, Together with Sermons and Letters (New York, 1834), p. 116.

76. John Kirkland, A Sermon Preached at Taunton, January 5, 1 800, at the
Ordination of the Reverend John Pipon. . . . ( Cambridge, 1800 ) , p. 7.

77. Nathaniel F. Emmons, A Sermon Delivered at the Ordination of the Rev-
erend John Robinson. . . .January 14, 1789 (Providence, 1789), p. 4.

78. John Witherspoon, The Works of the Reverend John Witherspoon, ed. John
Rodgers, III, 62 ff.

79. Justin Edwards, "An Address on Pulpit Eloquence," in Henry Burder,
Mental Discipline (New York, 1830), p. 186.

80. Witherspoon, Works, pp. 443-446.

81. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students (London, 1875),
p. 112.

82. Thomas Harwood Pattison, The Making of the Sermon, For the Classroom
and the Study (Philadelphia, 1880), p. 65.

83. Shedd, Homiletics, p. 183.

84. James M. Hoppin, Homiletics (New York, 1883), p 382.

85. Daniel P. Kidder, A Treatise on Homiletics, Designed to Illustrate the True
Theory and Practice of Preaching the Gospel (New York, 1864), p. 215.

86. See the following: John A. Broadus, A Treatise on the Preparation and
Delivery of Sermons, 30th ed. (New York, 1898), p. 288; Kidder, Treatise on
Homiletics, p. 200; Hoppin, Hormletics, p. 389; Austin Phelps, The Theory of
Preaching (New York, 1905), p. 391, John W. Etter, The Preacher and His Ser-
mon, A Treatise on Homiletics (Dayton, Ohio, 1885), p. 192.

87. William Ellery Channing, A Sermon Delivered at the Ordination of the
Reverend Ezra Stiles Gannett June 30th, 1824 (Boston, 1824), p. 13.

88. Hoppin, Homiletics, p. 2.

89. Broadus, Treatise, p. 340.

90. Ibid., p. 342.

91. Austin Phelps, English Style in Public Discourse, with Special Reference
to the Usages of the Pulpit (New York, 1915), p. 79.

92. Ibid., pp. 6, 126-128, 202-217.

93. John Dowling, The Power of Illustration an Element of Success in Preach-
ing and Teaching, 2d ed. (New York, 1847).

94. William Taylor, The Model Preacher (Cincinnati, 1859).

95. George W. Harvey, A System of Christian Rhetoric for the Use of Preach-
ers and Other Speakers (New York, 1873).

96. Dowling, Power of Illustration, pp. 12-13.

97. Ebenezer Porter, Analysis of the Principles of Rhetorical Delivery as
Applied to Reading and Speaking, 4th ed. ( New York, 1831 ).

98. Henry Ware, Hints on Extemporaneous Preaching (Boston, 1824).

99. William Russell, Pulpit Elocution (Andover, 1846).
100. Witherspoon, Works, p. 455.

152 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

101. Timothy Dwight, "Sermon CLIIL The Means of Grace— Extraordinary
Means o£ Grace— The Manner of Preaching," in Timothy Dwight, Theology Ex-
plained (Edinburgh, 1837), p. 798,

102. Edward Griffin, A Sermon on the Art of Preaching, Delivered Before the
Pastoral Association of Massachusetts (Boston, 1825), p. 26.

103. Adams, Lectures, p. 341.

104. Pattison, Making of the Sermon, p. 326.

105. Ware, Extemporaneous Preaching, p. 6.

106. Broadus, Treatise, p. 480.

107. Kidder, Treatise on Homilectics, p. 330.

/ Rhetorical and Elocutionary Training in
Nineteenth-Century Colleges

MARIE HOCHMUTH
RICHARD MURPHY

On December 8, 1819, Edward T. Charming, on being inducted into
the Boylston Professorship of Rhetoric and Oratory at Harvard Univer-
sity, observed: "It is the spirit of the age to turn everything to account,
and to let no good learning remain idle. How is it that eloquence has
gone behind-hand?" l At that time, Channing had the distinction of be-
ing one of the few men in American colleges who were engaged solely
to give rhetorical training. To understand Channing's lament, one must
survey what had gone on in American Colleges before 1819.

In the eighteenth century, training in rhetoric and oratory at Harvard,
and most colleges, had been provided not by one instructor especially
selected for the work, but by the incidental direction of tutors giving
instruction in a variety of subjects. There had been distinguished men
in the eighteenth century who gave serious if not exclusive attention to
rhetoric, but they were the exception to the rule. John Witherspoon had
attempted systematic training at Princeton; 2 Timothy Dwight, long
interested in the literary life of the country, incited interest in rhetoric
at Yale, even as a tutor. By his "example and his instructions," he pro-
duced a "great reform in the style of writing and speaking/' 3 He deliv-
ered to the students a series of lectures on style and composition, "on a
plan very similar to that contained in Blair's lectures, which were not
published until a considerable time afterward." 4 About 1770, "the art
of public speaking began for the first time in the history of the college
to be excited." Dwight continued his instruction after he became presi-
dent of Yale in 1795. The job of giving rhetorical training to students
frequently was one of the miscellaneous duties college presidents
assumed.

153

154 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Students seemed to desire rhetorical activity other than that provided
by the system of syllogizing, disputation, and declamation that had
been part of college training from the beginning in America. As early
as 1719, the Spy Club was formed at Harvard and students instructed
themselves in the art of discourse. Yale and Princeton soon followed
with similar societies— the Critonian, Linonian, and Brothers in Unity at
Yale, and the American Whig at Princeton. In 1770, Harvard students
formed a speaking Club. There had been, they claimed, a "cold indif-
ference to the practice of oratory." 5 But following the Boston Massacre
there was a "feast of patriotic oratory"; 6 declamations and forensic
disputes breathed "the spirit of liberty." 7

Following the American Revolution, in 1798, Harvard students having
become "exceedingly interested in the grave questions then before the
country" sought college "sanction" for a meeting designed for the "pur-
pose of expressing their opinions on the then existing crisis of our
public affairs." 8 "Though removed from active life," they "watched
with anxiety the interests of our country" and through public address
solemnly offered "the unwasted ardor and unimpaired energies of our
youth to the service of our country." 9 Financial difficulties in the col-
leges prevented adjustment of the curriculum to student interests in
post-Revolution days, although college authorities realized the need for
reorganization and adjustment to a new era. "College was never in a
worse state than when I entered it," noted a student of the Class of
1798 at Harvard. ccThe old foundations of social order, loyalty, tradition,
habits, reverence for antiquity, were everywhere shaken, if not sub-
verted. . . . The old forms were outgrown, and new ones had not taken

their place The system of government and instruction went on very

much as it had done for years before, and the result was a state of great
insubordination " 10

But a new culture was in the making, a culture that was to promote
literary independence as well as political independence, and colleges
were soon to adjust to the change. "It is high time that the young Hercu-
les, who has strangled the serpents, should go forth in the plentitude of
muscular force, and perform the mighty labors assigned him," wrote a
young American college graduate while traveling in Europe in 1803.
"American literature ought to bud, it ought to promise future fruits of
Hesperian luxuriance." ia In 1803, New England promulgated its first
literary magazine, the Monthly Anthology; in 1815, it launched the
North American Review. In the same year, two native sons, George
Ticknor and Edward Everett started their wanderjahre in Germany,
seeking inspiration and learning which were later to help stimulate the
development of American letters. In 1803, the Monthly Anthology
noted: "The fine arts, in America, have not made a very rapid progress,

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH- CENTURY COLLEGES 155

nor is their establishment very great in any particular State ... it is our

ardent desire to promote their progress among us " 12 Its second

issue defined the ideals for eloquence: "Eloquence is not an introduc-
tory science, which youth can be taught from books. It is the glorious
talent of improving all the treasures of art and of science, of history and
of nature to the illumination, conviction and subjugation of the hearts
of men. It is the dome of the temple, the perfection of human powers,
the action of mind on mind, the lightening of the moral world." 13 In
1810, when John Quincy Adams published his Lectures on Rhetoric and
Oratory, he did so with "an undoubting confidence that they will do
good. They will excite the genius, stimulate the literary ambition, and
improve the taste of the rising generation/' 14 He wrote to improve the
art of the forum, the art of the lawyer, the art of letters, in addition to
the art of the pulpit.

The published lectures of Adams were a high point in the history of
American rhetorical theory. They were made by the occupant of the
first Chair of Rhetoric and Oratory in the country. The history of its
establishment reveals in concrete form transitional elements from the
eighteenth century and the nineteenth century. It was in 1771 that the
will of Nicholas Boylston, wealthy benefactor of Harvard, revealed
the possibility of a chair in rhetoric and oratory: "I give & bequeath unto
the President & Fellows of Harvard College in Cambridge in the County
of Middlesex the sum of one thousand five hundred Pounds lawfull
money . . . toward the Support and Maintenance of some well Qualified
Person who shall be elected by the President and Fellows of said College
for the time being and approved of by the Overseers of said College to be

the Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory " 15 But thirty years passed

and nothing was done about the bequest. When suit by the heirs was
threatened for the recovery of the grant,16 Harvard bestirred itself. On
June 24, 1805, the Corporation unanimously elected the Honorable John
Quincy Adams, relative of the donor, United States Senator, and promis-
ing literary man, who was to become the sixth president of the United
States, to the first Professorship. He gave his first lecture July 11, 1806
and noted in his diary: "I this day commenced my course of lectures on
rhetoric and oratory,— an undertaking of magnitude and importance. . . .
My lecture was well received, and could I hope that the issue of the
whole course would bear a proportion to the effect of this introduction,
I should be fully satisfied." 1T For the next three years during term,
Adams appeared at ten o'clock on Friday mornings to deliver a lecture
on rhetoric and at two o'clock in the afternoons to preside over student
declamations.18

"A subject, which has exhausted the genius of Aristotle, Cicero, and
Quintilian, can neither require nor admit much additional illustra-

156 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

tion," 10 observed Adams in his Inaugural lecture. Accordingly, the first
American professor of rhetoric and oratory drew heavily upon the clas-
sical tradition. Many later practitioners in the nineteenth century fol-
lowed his example, but there was a variety of systems. The^ stream of
rhetorical and elocutionary training in the nineteenth century needs
detailed charting. Through the age, now swift flowing, now quiescent,
continued the main channel of classical rhetoric. Many tributaries fed
it and at times, indeed, rivaled the main stream in size and momentum
—the science of voice, the quasi-scientific elocutionary system, the com-
bination of muscle and vocal rhythm in Delsartian systems. At times
the course was narrowed to make way for an expanding curriculum and
social life, for journalism, the sciences, the fraternity and athletics. But
the stream flowed on, and gathering volume and momentum, at the
end of the century cascaded into what we now know as the modern
department of speech. It is convenient to chart this movement in periods
of quarter centuries.

1800-1825

On the surface, rhetorical training in the first quarter of the nine-
teenth century did not seem to differ materially from what had been
the vogue in the late eighteenth century. At Yale, Freshmen received
training in Cicero's De Oratore and Sophomores studied Lindley Mur-
ray's English Grammar. All the students, regardless of class, were re-
quired in daily rotation to "exhibit" compositions of various kinds, and
submit them to the instructor's criticism. Meeting in units of four, they
declaimed, publicly and privately, on Tuesdays and Fridays, in English,
Latin, Greek, or Hebrew; when required, each had to hand in a copy
of his declamation "fairly written." Seniors and Juniors also disputed
forensically before the class, twice a week, on a question approved by
the instructor; when the disputants had finished, the instructor dis-
cussed the matter at length, giving his own views on the problems and
on the arguments of both sides. One student assured his parents that all
the disputes and compositions required "a great deal of hard thinking
and also close application." 20 Programs at the other colleges were
strikingly similar. Yale may have been a bit more fortunate than most
schools in having Timothy Dwight, the president, handle the rhetorical
training for Seniors. "Intellectually, the Senior year was the best to me,"
observed Lyman Beecher, a student during Dwight's first years in the
presidency. "We all looked forward to Dr. Dwight's instructions with
interest. We began with Blair's Rhetoric, half an hour's recitation, and
an hour or hour and a half of extempore lecture On two other days

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY COLLEGES 157

we had written or extempore debates before Dr. Dwight, he summing
up at the close/' 21 Subjects of the debates were varied: "Ought Capital
Punishment ever to be inflicted?" "Ought Foreign Immigration to be
encouraged?" "Ought the Liberty of the Press to be restricted?" "Does
the Mind always Think?" "Is a Public Education preferable to a pri-
vate?" "Which have the greatest influence in Forming a National Char-
acter, Moral or Physical Causes?" "Ought the Clergy to be supported by
Law?" Dwight obviously encouraged free discussion, even permitting
the students to dispute the question, "Is the Bible the Word of God?"
As one studies the record of the disputations, he notes attention to cor-
rectness of diction, pronunciation, soundness of argument, and judg-
ment.22 Commencement programs in the early years of the century
abounded in forensic disputations, orations, dissertations, deliberative
discussions, essays, and colloquies,23 as they had done for years before.
Whereas the system seemed about the same as it was in the eigh-
teenth century, there were, in fact, differences in goals and ends. Not
only were colleges being pressed to train for professions other than the
clergy for which the early system of rhetorical training was designed,
but the clergy itself had begun to demand a new kind of training.
"American rhetoric" in 1785 was "closely allied with oratory," observes
Warren Guthrie, "but gradually moved more and more into the realm
of composition and criticism— belles lettres." 24 Students had always
been required to write as a basis for oratorical training. One must
remember that a year before John Quincy Adams became Professor of
Rhetoric and Oratory at Harvard, a Unitarian, Henry Ware, had been
elected Hollis Professor of Divinity,25 and New England churches be-
gan to fill their pulpits with 'liberal" ministers. In 1810, John Kirkland,
a Unitarian, became president of Harvard. Unitarians shifted the em-
phasis in sermonizing away from the rigidly logical sermon, for which
disputations had been excellent training, to the "literary sermon." 26
Sermons began to be praised for their grace and beauty, and criticized
for an absence of "sound doctrine." Men like Joseph Buckminster, Ed-
ward Everett, and William Ellery Channing, superbly graceful writers
and speakers, were occupying the pulpits, and crowds were respond-
ing to the new aesthetic appeal, even as the old line Calvinists were
readying themselves for attack both on the new theology and the new
method of sermonizing. Although Lyman Beecher believed that "the
plain, simple, energetic, argumentative style of New England preach-
ing . . . admits of becoming the best pulpit style in the world," even he,
in 1820, was forced "for the sake of maintaining our ground" to go "as
far as I could go to satisfy by popular oratory those who would be
formed on a worse model. . . ." 2r "Time was, when the good people of
this land retired silently from the sanctuary, saying little of the sermon,

158 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

and more of the duty of improving it," noted a critic of New England
preaching during the period. "But now., sermons have their day. In
some of our cities and villages, it has become a point of etiquette to
talk about them,— to descant on their merits and defects,— to point out

the beautiful passages and the bad " "Like the last tale or poem/'

the sermon was "talked about" and it became "just as useless, as a 'tale
that is told/ " 28 Sermons had clearly become "literary efforts" and were
thought of as artistic productions, quite as much as were the essays in
the Monthly Anthology or the North American Review. Eclectic in their
ministerial training, many of the young clergymen were united in their
enthusiasm for literature and literary study. Through their preaching
they were trying to bring about new American ideals and were exempli-
fying habits of preaching and writing quite different from those of the
eighteenth century.

It is not so much that rhetorical training was moving in the direction
of written composition (for rhetorical training had always been allied
with both speaking and writing), but that a new type of training had
become necessary even for the sermon. "If we wished to impoverish a
man's intellect/' wrote the popular William Ellery Channing, brother
of the Boylston Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory, "we could devise
few means more effectual, than to confine him to what is called a course
of theological reading." 29 In his own preparation, he strayed from con-
ventional methods, proclaiming "I am now totally immersed in litera-
ture. I have settled a course of reading for three years. . . /' 30 Whereas
oratory was being forced to give way to other types of literary art, the
oration itself began to change its form and would soon appear as the
"lecture."

The textbook most widely used for rhetorical training at the opening
of the century and continuing for more than a quarter of a century
thereafter was Hugh Blair's Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres.
Published in 1783, it was ordered by Brown University college library
in the same year and adopted by Yale as a text in 1785 and by Harvard
in 1788. By 1803 it was the "most popular rhetorical work in the col-
leges." 31 Steeped in the classical tradition, Blair, nevertheless, did not
consider rhetoric merely to be concerned with oral persuasion, "To
speak or to write perspicuously and agreeably, with purity, with grace
and strength, are attainments of the utmost consequence to all who pro-
pose, either by speech or writing, to address the public." 32 Blair who
"would stop hounds by his eloquence" 33 was a Scottish minister whose
published Sermons were "elegant and perspicuous discourses/' 34: A
country becoming increasingly self-conscious about its literature and a
clergy moving rapidly away from old methods of sermonizing found
Blair's Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres well adapted to their

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH- CENTURY COLLEGES 159

needs. "The study of composition, important in itself at all times, has
acquired additional importance from the taste and manners of the
present age," noted Blair. "It is an age wherein improvements, in every
part of science, have been prosecuted with ardour. To all the liberal
arts much attention has been paid; and to none more than to the beauty
of language, and the grace and elegance of every kind of writing. The
public ear is become refined. It will not easily bear what is slovenly and
incorrect. Every author must aspire to some merit in expression, as well
as in sentiment, if he would not incur the danger of being neglected
and despised." 35 To Blair, the study of Rhetoric and Belles Lettres pre-
supposes and requires a proper acquaintance with the rest of the liberal
arts. "It embraces them all within its circle, and recommends them to
the highest regard." 36 Blair concerned himself not only with instruc-
tions in speech-making but with instructions for historical writing,
philosophical writing, and poetry, including the lyric, the epic, tragic
drama, and comedy.

Supplementing the rhetorical program in most of the colleges at the
beginning of the nineteenth century was a strongly classical program. It
normally included logic, and the study of Greek and Latin. In the pro-
gram usually were Cicero's and Demosthenes' orations, Cicero's De
Oratore and Quintilian's Institutes of Oratory, although the latter was
not available in "numbers sufficient to supply a Class" 37 in some col-
leges. The pattern of rhetorical training was similar in colleges through-
out the country. Newly organized schools tended to draw their inspira-
tion, their plans, and their instructors and presidents from the older
colleges.38

Still, in 1819, at the beginning of Channing's long incumbency, there
was dissatisfaction with rhetorical training, despite the fact that it was
becoming more systematized than it had earlier been. By 1824, Brown,
Yale, and Bowdoin had followed Harvard in establishing chairs of
rhetoric. The textbooks and methods employed in teaching rhetoric
threw emphasis on theory, with little distinction between the art of the
speaker and the art of the writer. The public looked upon exhibitions of
student speaking and found them not much better than they had been.
"A branch of instruction which has been shamefully neglected (the
word, I own, is a harsh one)," noted William Tudor, traveler and ob-
server of a Harvard Commencement program, "has been oratory,— or
rather, elocution. Every person who has attended a college exhibition,
would see, with disgust, more than half the exhibiters speak their parts
in such a slovenly, awkward manner, as would not have been tolerated
in a village school. . . . There is a professorship of rhetoric and oratory,
—but its principal duties are the instruction in the former, in the forma-
tion of style and the theory of speaking." 39

160 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Occasionally the teachers were blamed for the deficiencies. Both their
methods and their emphasis were found to be at fault. "As for oratory,
Mr. Channing's professorship was a sinecure/' noted one of his students.
"He had, as a speaker, no grace, nor any great diversity of modulation;
and his gestures were awkward, seeming to denote rather his discom-
fort at being obliged to speak than the mood of thought or feeling to
which he gave expression." 40 Channing conducted public declamations
in the college chapel once a fortnight, with the whole Senior class
obliged to attend. A certain number in their turn, according to alpha-
betical order repeated "with such show of oratory as they could sev-
erally command, pieces of their own choice in poetry or prose, oftener
in poetry." Channing "listened attentively to these declamations, and
marked them ... on a scale of twenty-four; but he never made any com-
ment, unless it were to rebuke the choice of a piece offensively coarse,
or some outrageous grotesqueness in delivery/7 41 Of the Boylston Pro-
fessor of Rhetoric, Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:

Channing, with his bland, superior look,
Cold as a moonbeam on a frozen brook. . . .42

Channing was rather obviously more concerned with developing the
literary life of New England than in giving individual training in oral
expression. He had little equipment and training for aiding students to
remedy vocal deficiencies. He could help them write orations and other
literary forms, but he apparently had little expertness in helping the
students to speak with vocal perfection. "I am inclined to consider
rhetoric when reduced to a system in books, as a body of rules derived
from experience and observation, extending to all communication by
language and designed to make it efficient," Channing observed in his
lectures to the students. "It does not ask whether a man is to be a
speaker or writer,-a poet, philosopher, or debater; but simply ,— is it his
wish to be put in the right way of communicating his mind with power
to others, by words spoken or written." 43 Like his predecessors John
Quincy Adams, and Joseph McKean, Channing leaned heavily upon the
ancients. Precepts for voice training and elocutionary skill had not been
detailed by the ancients, and Channing did not supply the deficiency
to any great extent44

Rhetorical and elocutionary training in the first quarter of the nine-
teenth century was built upon the habits of disputation and declama-
tion prominent the century before. But there were two notable expan-
sions. One came in the establishment of chairs of rhetoric, giving to the
field a status in the curriculum. The other change was the attention
given to developing the literary background of the orator with the pur-
pose of making htm more perspicuous and more perspicacious. But

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY COLLEGES 161

deficiencies in platform skill, in management of the voice and in general
delivery, were apparent. In the next quarter century, training in voice
and general elocutionary skills were accentuated to remedy the defects,

III

1825-1850

"The tongue or voyce is praise-worthie . . .," thought a contributor to
the New England Magazine in 1832, as he voiced his complaint against
the delivery of preachers and public men, urging that the colleges take
notice. "It is but recently that they have given much attention to the
subject of Eloquence, or elocution, as a science to be taught," he ob-
served. "But the day is coming, and even now is, when a different
course must be adopted. A taste for polite literature and the fine arts
is becoming too general among the population of the country to allow
the colleges to send forth their annual hosts of graduates for the pulpits
and the forum, untaught in the most important accomplishment of a
public man, without severe rebuke. Yale has already done something
for improvement in the art of speaking; and Harvard,— good old dull
and sleepy matron, is just awaking, and rubbing her eyes, and perceives
the necessity of doing a little to stop the public clamor, and shield her
alumni from the reproaches of common school-boys." 45 Complaints
about the poor rendition of orations, debates, and disputations at exhibi-
tions and commencements had been frequent for many years. People
were sometimes amused at the "seeming torture" to which the human
body could be put "without stretching it on the rack," 4G and oc-
casionally reported on delivery that "would have done honor to an
Aboriginal Sachem. . . ." 4T As manners in general became more re-
fined, more and more pressure was put upon the schools to pay atten-
tion to the rendition of orations, debates, and declamations. Improved
taste in composition was not enough. Then, too, a dying Calvinism was
seeking to regain its losses by invigorating its preaching, and called
upon the schools to aid in this task. "I must say I have been troubled at
the complaints which have been made at the want of animation of the
Andover students, and of the impression beginning to be made in favor
of Princeton," wrote the Reverend Lyman Beecher to authorities at
Andover, training ground for Calvinists after Harvard's adoption of
Unitarianism. "I say, therefore, that you must remedy the defect, so far
as it is positive. Your preachers must wake up, and lift up their voice.
They must get their mouths open, and their lungs in vehement action,
there in your little chapel, and, if need be, start the glass, and heave the
swelling sides, and tear passion to a tatters." 4S

The criticism of the public performances of clergymen, lawyers, and

162 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

men in public affairs, that now went on in America, had its counterpart
in England a generation before. There the fifth of the classical canons
of rhetoric had been isolated for special attention in the last half of the
eighteenth century. A flood of essays and books on elocution had ensued.
The elocutionary writings of Thomas Sheridan, James Burgh, John
Walker, Joshua Steele, and Gilbert Austin were exported to America,
were available in libraries, and were sometimes consulted by students
in preparation of their declamations. By 1824, the Reverend Ebenezer
Porter, who became Bartlett Professor of Pulpit Eloquence at Andover
in 1811, published his own text, Lectures on the Analysis of Vocal In-
flection, one of the earliest American discussions of vocal delivery. In
1827, he published An Analysis of the Principle of Rhetorical Delivery,
and in 1831, his Rhetorical Reader, a practical textbook, the popularity
of which is reflected in the fact that by 1858 it reached its three hun-
dredth printing.

Gradually elocutionary training became separated from rhetorical
training. By 1828, colleges such as Colby, Middlebury, South Carolina,
and Yale, in assigning Richard Whately's Rhetoric specified "except
Part IV," 49 the section which dealt with "Elocution, or Delivery." Such
an exclusion suggests that elocutionary training was being thought of
as a separate discipline. About 1823, Jonathan B arbour, a disciple of
the English writer, Joshua Steele, author of Prosodia Rationalis, came
to America.50 By 1830, he was at least unofficially connected with Yale,
and offering elocutionary training, as the title of his book published in
1830 indicates: A Grammar of Elocution: Containing the Principles of
the Arts of Reading and Speaking: Illustrated by Appropriate Exercises
and Examples, Adapted to Colleges, Schools, and Private Instruction:
The Whole Arranged in the Order in Which It is Taught in "Yale Col-
lege.^ The separation of rhetoric and elocution is clearly manifested in
1830 with the official appointment of Erasmus D. North as Instructor
in Elocution at Yale.52 Jonathan Barbour was hired by Harvard
University in 1830 to supplement the work in rhetoric by giving spe-
cial attention to elocution, being the "first professedly scientific teacher
of elocution employed in Harvard College/'53 Barbour lost little time
after coming to America in associating himself with American physi-
cians, one of whom was James Rush who, in 1827, published The
Philosophy of the Human Voice.54 The book, intended for physicians,
found its place among persons who had become increasingly interested
in the special problems of the voice and in vocal presentation. Barbour
was among those, having become acquainted with the contents of the
book even before it was published.55

Wendell Phillips, eminent American orator, was a student of Barbour
at Harvard and found his system "the best ever offered to any student/*

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH- CENTURY COLLEGES 163

Based on Rush, the system was "at once philosophically sound and emi-
nently practical." Barbour's reliance "on principle, and comparative
disuse of technical rules, seem to me a great advantage over all other
systems with which I am acquainted." 56 But Phillips did not speak for
the majority; student ridicule caused Barbour to resign his Harvard
post by 1835.57 Among devices unpleasant to students was his bamboo-
slatted sphere which fitted over the practicing speaker, and enabled
him to acquire with finesse all the gradations of gesture through 360°.
Although elocution was late in developing in America, it became a re-
quired study in most colleges, and remained so until late in the century,
when it became generally elective. And although early elocution closely
followed English writers of the eighteenth century, after 1827 James
Rush became the dominant influence, and remained influential through
the century. James Murdoch, for example, was a devoted student of
Rush. "I have labored," Murdoch wrote late in his career, "to simplify
and make practical Dr. Rush's Philosophy of the Voice." 5S Murdoch
taught Robert Fulton and Thomas Trueblood, eminent elocutionists at
the end of the century. They dedicated their book, Practical Elements
of Elocution,5* to Murdoch, "whose life and work have been an abiding
source of inspiration."

What has been said of the elocutionary movement in England during
the eighteenth century may be said of the concern with delivery in
America during the nineteenth century: "In methodology, it was char-
acterized by the systematic ordering of certain observed phenomena of
voice, body, and language, and by the invention and use of systems of
notation to represent these phenomena. In philosophy, it was character-
ized by a mechanistic interpretation of the laws of nature. Elocution, in
short, was a 'scientific' subject." 60 In the concern with the fifth canon
of classical rhetoric, "a new ordering of an old subject" 61 took place. As
the century advanced elocutionary training became the vogue and then
the standard pattern.

In less spectacular fashion, the older training in the rhetorical canons
other than delivery, continued. At Yale, for instance, while Erasmus
North occupied himself with elocution, Chauncey Goodrich, appointed
to the Professorship of Rhetoric in 1817, continued to pursue the older
tradition: "The Sophomores were instructed by him, through the sum-
mer term, in Jamieson's Rhetoric. The Senior Classes were taught out
of a text-book of higher Rhetoric and Criticism, and read Compositions
before him which were afterwards criticized in private. . . . The impor-
tance of his instruction to the Seniors meanwhile was increased by the
study of Demosthenes on the Grown, as the chef d'oeuvre of ancient
eloquence, and by a very interesting course of lectures on English ora-
tory " 62 Goodrich had as his object, as he explains in his preface to

164 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Select British Eloquence, "to awaken in the minds of the class that love
of genuine eloquence which is the surest pledge of success" and "to
initiate the pupil in those higher principles which . . . have always
guided the great masters of the art. ..." G3 At Columbia "the declama-
tions of the juniors and seniors were their own original compositions,
and those of the freshmen and sophomores selected pieces." 64 At Wil-
liams, Mark Hopkins, having become president in 1836, carried on with
traditional rhetorical training.65 At Amherst, the old tradition was
carried on under a grant for the endowment of a professorship of rheto-
ric and oratory as early as 1823. GS At Bowdoin, Samuel Philipp New-
man, elected in 1824 to the first professorship of rhetoric and oratory, in
1830 introduced his own textbook, A Practical System of Rhetoric, or
the Principles and Rules of Style, following the older tradition. Out of
this book, such men as Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Nathaniel
Hawthorne, Sargent Prentiss, and Franklin Pierce received their early
instruction.67

Whereas classical study of rhetoric continued, it was to some extent
affected both by the increased emphasis on delivery and by its separa-
tion from the classics as a discipline in its own right. Separate profes-
sorships meant the creation of a gulf between the classics and rhetoric,
heretofore allied very closely. At Columbia in 1833, the professor of
rhetoric, John McVickar, felt handicapped by no longer having control
of materials for study in the classics. He was not satisfied with the
materials being taught by the professor of classics since these materials
did not furnish adequate basis for rhetorical training. "The professor
would here respectfully suggest that it would greatly add to the stu-
dent's ability to pursue this course [rhetoric], were the ancient Rheto-
ricians & critical writers read contemporaneously or rather previously
in the classical course. Thus, the present Junior class knows nothing of
Cicero's IDe Oratore,' Horace's cArs Poetica'— to all of which constant
reference must be made— and an acquaintance with Longinus only so
far as their present reading has carried them." 6S In addition to the
changes brought about by the elocutionary movement and by the lesser
support from the classics, rhetorical training became increasingly linked
with belletristic study. As has been found, in terms of departmental
organization, <eby 1850 the grouping was not so frequently 'Rhetoric and
Oratory' as "Rhetoric and Belles Lettres,' or 'Rhetoric and composition/
with delivery now relegated to the tremendously popular "Elocu-
tion/"69

As new colleges began to spring up throughout the country, they
modeled their courses of study on that of the older institutions. Illinois
College, founded by Yale missionaries in 1829, specified in its laws:
"The Professor of Rhetoric shall instruct in the Critical and Rhetorical

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY COLLEGES 165

study of Portions of the Latin and Greek orators and poets, and also in
Composition, Translation and Declamation," 70 By 1833, it had already
stated: "The students will also receive instruction in the science of elo-
cution. . . ." 71 And Herbert E. Rhae has found that the "history of
speech education in Indiana colleges followed the pattern set by east-
ern higher institutions. This is particularly true in the weekly memorized
declamations among Freshmen and Sophomores. There was also a simi-
larity in the continuity of the original orations and disputations for
Juniors and Seniors with the practice in the East." 72

During the second quarter of the century the classical tradition in
rhetoric endured and in many places was expanded. But the innova-
tions, and the greatest expansions, occurred in systems of elocution,
with special attention to voice and gesture.

1850-1875

To Henry Adams, a college student of the 1850's, being Class Day
orator was "political as well as literary success." 73 "If Harvard College
gave nothing else," he thought, "it gave calm. For four years each stu-
dent had been obliged to figure daily before dozens of young men who
knew each other to the last fibre. One had done little but read papers
to Societies, or act comedy in the Hasty Pudding, not to speak of all
sorts of regular exercises, and no audience in future life would ever be
so intimately and terribly intelligent as these." 74 Uncertain as to
whether he was getting an "education," in one respect at least, he was
aware that the American university was doing something for its students
that the European university was not. "Three-fourths of the graduates
would rather have addressed the Council of Trent or the British Parlia-
ment than have acted Sir Anthony Absolute or Dr. Ollapod before a
gala audience of the Hasty Pudding," 75 and "nothing seemed stranger"
to the American college graduate than the "paroxysms of terror before
the public which often overcame the graduates of European Univer-
sities." 76 Adams was "ready to stand up before any audience in America
or Europe, with nerves rather steadier for the excitement," but "whether
he should ever have anything to say, remained to be proved." 77

If Henry Adams questioned whether he was receiving an education,
even so did college administrators. The narrower curriculum of an
earlier day was to expand with a country expanding in interest and
activity. Although rhetorical training was to continue, more and more
it was to give way to literature and criticism. Whereas the class orator
could still believe himself to ha^ve achieved "political as well as literary
success," he was more and more to share the rostrum with the poet, the

166 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

essayist, and the editor of the college magazine. Henry Adams himself
sought proficiency not only in oratory, but contributed to the college
magazine and acquired enthusiasm for literature through private lit-
erary study with Lowell.

Surveying the decade prior to the mid-century for evidences of train-
ing in rhetoric and oratory, Coulton on examining the departmental
organization of fifty-six colleges and universities observes that "Moral
Science and Belles Lettres" had disappeared and there has been added
in this period "English Literature," "English/' and "Philosophy and
Belles Lettres." 78 By the decade of 1870 and 1880, departmental organ-
ization continues with "English clearly predominating /' 79 According
to Samuel Eliot Morison, the advance of English as a special field which
was eventually to encompass rhetorical training in many places was "in
the nature of peaceful penetration/' 80 The delay in getting started was
due "not to opposition/' but to a "general failure to see in it anything
more than a minor element in the preparation for the ministry." 81 As
late as the sixties at Harvard "English meant elocution and rheto-
ric. . . ,82 In 1858 and 1859, "the Freshmen had Lessons in Orthoepy and
Lessons in Expression; the Sophomores, Lessons in Expression, Lessons
in Action, Themes; the Juniors, Themes, Declamation, Rhetoric; the
Seniors, Forensics; nothing more." S3 The gradual shift to an emphasis
on English literature was given impetus by Francis J. Child who suc-
ceeded Channing in the Chan: of Rhetoric and Oratory, for it was he
who "first saw the possibilities of English as a factor in general scholar-
ship." 84 Almost immediately after Child's succession, a "course of
twelve Lectures was given to the Senior Class, on the English lan-
guage." S5 Instruction was given in the second term of the Senior year
to "small voluntary classes, in Anglo Saxon, and the rudiments of Ice-
landic/' 86 In 1853, during the first term of the Senior class, students
attended Lectures on the English language, and afterwards read selec-
tions from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.87 By 1876 Child had become
"Professor of English."

During the period from 1850 to 1875, Elocution was a required sub-
ject in many colleges throughout the country. However, with pressure
from an expanded curriculum, its value as a required subject was ques-
tioned. This was a period of vast expansion for the colleges. New fields
of study were added as the country became increasingly rich, indus-
trious, and populous. Columbia founded its school of mines in 1864; 88
California by 1870 had colleges of Agriculture, Mechanical Arts, Mines,
and Civil Engineering in addition to the original Arts college.89 The
elective system of studies was greatly expanded to meet this pressure.
Having been in practice to some extent since about 1820 at the Univer-
sity of Virginia,90 it advanced rapidly after it was given new impetus

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH- CENTURY COLLEGES 167

by Harvard's president Charles Eliot after 1869. The wisdom of re-
quiring elocution was questioned. In 1873, at Harvard, elocution was
dropped to elective status.91 The reason may be found in an observa-
tion of James Murdoch. Commenting on the value of elocution as it
was taught in the seventies and early eighties, Murdoch observes: "Elo-
cution, as taught at present, is, in most cases, considered and treated in
theory and practice as little more than an imitative art, and as such
yields its rightful position of honor and dignity as a branch of study
based upon philosophic or scientific principles." 92 In 1875, Allegheny
College showed unrest with a program of elocutionary training by call-
ing attention to the virtues of the system of speech training recom-
mended by Professor Nathan Sheppard, a visiting professor from
Scotland who was giving a course of lectures in which there "is no
attempt to teach 'elocution' or any artificial system, nor is public speak-
ing confounded with recitation, declamation, or dramatic reading."
Allegheny chose to "incorporate practically—especially in the advanced
classes— the suggestions and directions of Prof. Sheppard in the instruc-
tions of this department." 93 Even as early as 1861, Columbia readily
yielded up John H. Siddons, instructor in elocution, in order to avoid
a budgetary deficit, and made no appointment thereafter.94

Meanwhile, a traditionally classical approach to rhetoric continued.
Such textbooks as George Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric, Blair's
Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, and Richard Whately's Rheto-
ric were still used. More often, however, textbooks to some extent based
on the principles of the English rhetorics but written by American
teachers were used. Henry N. Day's Elements of the Art of Rhetoric,
published in 1850 and later issued in 1867 as The Art of Discourse be-
came popular. Adapted to American needs, Day's treatises nevertheless
were classical. Like Blair, Day treated discourse other than oratory,
but oratory remained the highest form of art. In his view oratory was
discourse for the purpose of effect; poetry was discourse for the purpose
of form; and history and treatises were discourse for the purpose of
subject matter. Other textbooks by Americans gained prominence, such
as that of G. P. Quackenbos, Advanced Course of Composition and
Rhetoric.

One need only look at the program of the University of California
in the early seventies to realize that the classical traditions were being
fully maintained. Fortnightly themes and forensics were required dur-
ing the first, second, and third years, with theoretical study of rhetoric
confined to the third year. Whately's Rhetoric was used as a textbook,
supplemented by Cope's Introduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric, Blair's
Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, and Campbell's Philosophy of
Rhetoric.95 At Illinois College in the mid-west, Sophomores studied

168 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Cicero's De Oratore for one half year; Juniors studied Day's Rhetoric
and Seniors studied Demosthenes' "On the Crown." 96 Students had
optional work in Quintilian's Institutes of Oratory and in the study of
selections from English and American orators.97 At Hamilton College,
Anson Judd Upson and Henry Allen Fink were strengthening traditions
begun at the founding of the college. The 1843 rules governing "rhetori-
cals" sent all students to the Chapel during the next forty years to attend
public exercises of "declamations, select translations from the classics,
the original essays and orations." On Wednesday noon of each week
"four freshmen, four sophomores, and four juniors gave declamations
before the assembled college; on Saturday noon of each week two from
each lower class read essays, two juniors presented discussions, and two
seniors gave orations/' 9S Between 1854 and 1866 prize contests were
established in both original oratory and extemporaneous debate. "No
effort was spared by the instructor to bring out the characteristic
powers of each speaker and to ready him for the best performance of
which he was capable." 99 Although the Literary Societies at Hamilton
had begun to decline about 1850,100 a systematic training program in
speaking continued to be very strong. The oration was considered to
be an instrument of power and public service. In 1876, the Hamilton
College orator, participating in one of the earliest intercollegiate ora-
torical contests, spoke before such distinguished judges as William
Cullen Bryant, Whitelaw Reid, and George William Curtis on the sub-
ject "The Heroic Element in Modern Life" at the New York Academy
of Music and won the prize of the day. Thereafter intercollegiate ora-
torical contests sprang up all over the country, serving to revitalize
interest in public speaking.101

In the third quarter of the century, elocution lost position as a re-
quired subject, lout continued as an elective. Rhetorical training per-
severed but it was modified in the direction of belles lettres, and fre-
quently was identified with departments of English. The ever-enduring
urge for platform expression found a new outlet in intercollegiate ora-
torical contests.

V
1875-1900

Bliss Perry was a student at Williams in the early part of the last
quarter of the nineteenth century, with an "interest in speaking, writing,
and miscellaneous reading." 102 It was "curious," he thought, that he
could recall "so little" about his class work in English.103 He was obliged
to write and deliver orations once or twice a year under the supervision
of the Professor of Rhetoric, Llewellyn Pratt, who gave his productions
"as much attention as they deserved," but it was "very little." 104 The

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH- CENTURY COLLEGES 169

rhetoric text was that of D. J. Hill, Science of Rhetoric. But if he re-
ceived little attention from his rhetoric instructor, he was helped to
win the coveted Graves Prize in his senior year, largely through the
assistance of George L. Raymond, who gave lessons in elocution "part
of each year." 105 "No one pays much attention to such contests now,"
observed Perry, "but in our day crowds attended them." 106 For months
he toiled away among the moth-eaten stuffed moose in Jackson Hall
learning Raymond's "vocal exercises," the "trick of deep-breathing/'
and the "proper 'placing' of the voice" from lessons in The Orators
Manual™7

Before the century was over, Perry succeeded Raymond both at
Williams and at Princeton. During his own years of service as a teacher
of rhetoric he witnessed the decline of interest in oratory in the Eastern
colleges, and tried to "prop up for a while a building that was doomed
to fall" 108 by assisting in the development of forensics, a form of speak-
ing stimulated by the organization of intercollegiate debate contests.
In the nineties, when he was at Princeton he journeyed to New Haven
and Cambridge to help organize the first intercollegiate debates be-
tween Yale, Harvard, and Princeton; and for some years they "excited
great interest." 109 He matched his wits against great teachers like
Hadley at Yale and George Pierce Baker at Harvard in faculty coaching
of debates.

Perry's experience as a student and later as a teacher in a sense
reflects the main line of development of rhetorical training and effort in
the last quarter of the nineteenth century* Rhetoric was often taught in
departments of English; oratory had a prominent position in colleges
throughout the country but was losing vogue in some of the Eastern col-
leges; instruction was given in elocution in most of the colleges and
was looked upon as an aid to students in their competitions for prizes
in oratory; forensics courses were introduced into the college curricu-
lum in order to meet the needs of organized intercollegiate debate
and faculty coaching. Students, caught up in the enthusiasm for debate,
argued its value over oratory.110 Now and then, colleges in the West
voiced the opinion that it was to be their duty and their honor to keep
both oratoiy and debate alive. "Oratory must always be foremost,"
commented the Colorado Class of '99, "if our ambition for the reputa-
tion and success of our institution is to be satisfied; eastern college men
have turned their attention to athletics and things athletic in their
nature, and it is for western colleges and universities to keep alive
the interest in debate and oratory if we would have power and
prosperity." ll:L

Debate in some form had been part of the college program from the
beginning. The art of syllogizing was probably the earliest forebear of

170 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

debate; it was succeeded in the eighteenth century by forensic dispu-
tation, More and more, disputations grew into the regular classroom
debate or the argumentative discourse. Societies had begun to meet
each other in debate early in the nineteenth century. Finally, in the last
part of the nineteenth century, more ambitious undertakings were afoot
and colleges began to meet each other in formalized debate. The curricu-
lar program adjusted itself to the needs of students. In 1885 Josiah
Royce, later to become an eminent philosopher, was in charge of "for-
ensics" at Harvard, or work in argumentative discourse. By 1888-1889,
the Harvard catalog listed Ten Lectures in argumentative composition
or oral discussion of topics in political economy and history as part of
its curriculum.112 At Boston University in the same year, Sophomores
and Juniors had vocal and forensic training; 11S Oberlin in 1891-1892
under William B. Chamberlain, offered a course in Forensic Delivery,
described as "Practical studies in Argumentation and Oratory; analy-
sis of models with reference to an audience, and criticism upon the
rendering of selected and original speeches and debates."114 In 1893-
1894, Northwestern offered a course in Forensics in which "Questions
are announced and sides are taken one week before each debate, and
references are given on the Library Bulletin to the available literature on
the respective questions." 115 Wisconsin in the same year, under Franken-
burger, had a course in Rhetoric consisting of "Exercises in debates,
essays, orations, with personal criticism." An advanced course in the
Philosophy of Rhetoric consisted of "Analysis of great orations, essays,
and debates, with higher rhetorical and literary criticism." 116 Oregon in
1896-1897 offered two courses in Forensics and Orations, using Baker's
Specimens of Argumentation as a textbook.117 By the end of the cen-
tury, California had four courses in Argumentation and Debate. They
were devoted to preparation of briefs, practice in debate, oral debate
on literary topics with analysis of stylistic features of argumentative
discourse, and studies in masterpieces of argumentation. In addition, a
course in Greek was devoted to a study of Plato's Gorgias with special
reference to the Socratic method of argumentation.118 Alabama had in
1898 as part of the English course, training in argumentative dis-
course.119 Michigan in 1899 had a course in Oral Discussion which con-
sisted of "application of the principles of formal logic and elocution in
debating leading questions of the day," and preparation of briefs. This
course was designed to "develop readiness of extemporization and is
recommended to those who desire to enter the inter-collegiate de-
bates." 12° And the University of Illinois offered in the department of
Rhetoric and Oratory, a course in Oral Discussion, emphasizing data
for discussion, with oral debates and attention to delivery.121
These are typical of the programs of training common throughout

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH- CENTURY COLLEGES 171

the country. Coaches and students alike were learning the art of for-
malized debate, and usually using as a basic text George Pierce Baker's
Specimens of Argumentation or his Principles of Argumentation., or
both. But the programs were a culmination of movements in the cen-
tury. Half of the material in Baker's Specimens was taken from Good-
rich, even to the notes. Students at the end of the century were apply-
ing the method of rhetorical criticism Goodrich had illustrated so
thoroughly at mid-century.

Meanwhile, in this last quarter of the nineteenth century new devel-
opments took place in the handling of elocutionary training and in the
formalization of speech programs. Itinerant teachers of elocution were
gradually affixing themselves to colleges as part of a curriculum which
was becoming more stabilized. In 1877 when William Jennings Bryan
was a student at Illinois College, S. S. Hammill was instructing in elo-
cution for part of the year. According to Bryan, 'lie rather leaned to
the dramatic and recommended dramatic pieces to us. I rather pre-
ferred the oratorical style. . . . He trained us in modulation of the voice,
gesticulation, etc., and I presume that his instructions were beneficial
to me, although I have been so much more interested in the subject
matter than in the form of presentation that my use of his advice has
been unconscious rather than intentional." 122 In the summer session of
1878 Hammill attracted two students who were to carry on his work
and to establish departments and schools of oratory in two leading uni-
versities. The two students were Thomas C. Trueblood and Robert I.
Fulton who, after additional training with James Murdoch, established
elocutionary training at the University of Michigan and at Ohio Wes-
leyan University, in a more formal way than it had been taught in many
schools. Elocutionary training never died out of the college curriculum.
After the elective system had come into use on a large scale, elocu-
tionary training was often elective; at other places it was required but
not accredited for graduation. At Michigan in 1892, Trueblood was
made Professor of Elocution and launched a formalized program of
speech training with full college credit attached.123

In the latter part of the nineteenth century, the principles of elocu-
tionary training which had been based on Rush 124 were supplemented
by a stream of thought deriving from the French music teacher and
actor, Delsarte. Thus the physiological theories of Rush were united
with aesthetic theories. College catalogs occasionally refer to the nature
of the elocutionary training. Oregon offered at the end of the century
numerous courses in elocution, indicating that "General Principles of
Delsarte and Mackaye" 125 were used. At Michigan, "the Rush and Del-
sarte philosophies" 126 were taught. At Colorado, the instructor in ora-
tory, W. H. Goodall, was an "enthusiastic admirer of Delsarte " 127

172 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Enthusiasm for the Delsarte theory of elocution sometimes meant em-
phasis on physical culture; at Colorado, W. H. Goodall was "proficient
in elocution, gesture work and physical culture." At the University of
Illinois in 1895, an instructor in Elocution and in Physical Culture for
Women gave courses in Oral Rhetoric, including work in breathing and
modulation, and practiced "the Delsarte Culture." 12S At Huron College
at the end of the century Elbert R. Moses was listed as Director of a
"Department of Oratory and Physical Culture." Exercises in club swing-
ing, fencing, walking, and calisthenics were part of the program.129

At the time that Fulton and Trueblood were preparing for a life of
teaching, Samuel Silas Curry was a student at Boston University, where
Lewis B. Monroe, a student of Delsarte, was in charge of the School of
Oratory. In 1879, when Monroe died, Curry succeeded to the position
of director of oratorical training. Stimulated in part by Delsarte's
theories deriving from Monroe, in part by Alexander Graham Bell's
lectures on the science of the voice, and by numerous other influences
both American and foreign, Curry became eclectic in his theories and
teaching. Disturbed by mechanical and imitative practices, Curry for-
mulated his own theories, and in 1891 published Province of Expression,,
stressing the need for mental training as a basis for effective delivery.
Toward the end of the century Curry's theories were gaining wide cur-
rency in the schools.

Classical traditions went on in the last part of the nineteenth century,
but more and more the concern in departments of English was with
forms of writing other than oratory. Whereas the theory of invention
was once almost exclusively oriented in oratorical discourse, more and
more the orientation became that of prose composition generally. Books
such as those of Quackenbos' Advanced Course in Composition and
Rhetoric and John Franklin Genung's The Practical Elements of Rheto-
ric, and Adams Sherman Hill's The Principles of Rhetoric helped to
establish new categories of rhetoric: narration, description, exposition,
and argumentation.130 In the last decade of the century, courses in
public speaking were established and differentiated from the usual
courses in rhetoric. Oral and written discourse began to be taught sepa-
rately. And argumentation became almost exclusively the concern of
public speaking.

In his survey of rhetorical training in the colleges during a large part
of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century,
Thomas Coulton observed: "We seem to be dealing, then, with a
discipline which came to no sudden awakening after a period of neg-
lect, but one which, having long been maintained in its accustomed

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY COLLEGES 173

place, was lifted on the tide of larger public interest in higher educa-
tion and met the swell of this tide by offering more semesters of work
and in greater variety. Both growth and adjustment are evidenced." 131
The consistent line of instruction throughout the century was classical
rhetorical training, both in specialized courses and in supplementary
programs in Greek and Latin. John Quincy Adams delivered the key-
note for the age when he eulogized Aristotle and the ancients. In the
first quarter of the century the rambling instruction of the earlier Cen-
tury "was systematized and ensconced in chairs of rhetoric. And the
purposes were expanded beyond eighteenth-century syllogizing and
disputing to include general training to make the orator more literate
and discerning. But Adams' suggestion that little could be added to the
classical tradition was never accepted fully. In the second quarter of
the century, particular concern was .for systems of elocution, with train-
ing in voice and bodily gesture, with attempts to apply "science * to the
field" "of speech. In the third quarter of the century speech training
became linked with English literature, and departments of English
assumed the main responsibility for training in rhetoric. Interest in
elocution diminished, but the persistent urge of students to find artistic
oral expression sought an outlet in intercollegiate speaking contests.
In tEeTast quarter of the century courses in public speaking and par-
ticularly in argumentation and forensic forms, became established.
SpeecTi as a field— the classical rhetorical tradition combined with the
newer concerns of vocal and physical training— became established
clearly if not firmly. The base was supplied for the detailed structures
which were to be erected in the twentieth-century Departments of
Speech.

Notes

1. Edward T. Charming, "Inaugural Discourse, December 8, 1819" (Cam-
bridge, 1819), p. 14.

2. Varnum Lansing Collins, President Wither spoon (Princeton, 1925), I,
141-143.

3. Denison Olmsted, "Timothy D wight as a Teacher," American Journal of
Education, V (1858), 567-585.

4. Ibid.

5. Samuel Eliot Morison, Three Centuries of Harvard, 1636-1936 (Cambridge,
1936), p. 138.

6. Ibid.

7. Letter of Reverend Andrew Eliot to Thomas Hollis, quoted by Morison,
p. 138.

8. Memoir of William Ellery Channing, with Extracts from his Correspondence
and Manuscripts, 6th ed. (Boston, 1854), I, 68.

9. Ibid., I, 69, 70.

10. Ibid., I, 60.

11. Letter of Arthur Walter to William Ellery Channing, April 1, 1803, quoted
in Joseph B. Felt, Memoirs of William Smith Shaw (Boston, 1852), pp. 167, 168.

174 KHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

12. Monthly Anthology, I (December, 1803), 51.

13. Ibid., I, 62.

14. Letter of John Quincy Adams to his brother, August 7, 1809, quoted in
Writings of John Quincy Adams, ed. Worthmgton Chauncey Ford (New York,
1914), III, 334.

15. Donald M. Goodfellow, "The First Boylston Professor of Rhetoric and Ora-
tory/' New England Quarterly, XIX (September, 1946), 373, 374.

16. Ibid., pp. 372-389.

17. The Diary of John Quincy Adams, ed. Allan Nevins (New York, 1928)
p. 42.

18. Goodfellow, op. cit., pp. 372-389; Josiah Quincy, The History of Harvard
University (Cambridge, 1840), II, 214-215, 290-291, 324, 326, Edward Everett,
"A Eulogy on the Life and Character of John Quincy Adams" (Boston, 1848), pp.
33-35, Samuel Flagg Bemis, John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American
Foreign Policy (New York, 1949), pp. 132-134.

19. "An Inaugural Oration, Delivered at the Author's Installation as Boylston
Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory," in Lectures on Rhetoric and Oratoni (Cam-
bridge, 1810), p. 26.

20. Charles E. Cuningham, Timothy Dwight (New York, 1942), p. 239.

21. Autobiography, Correspondence, Etc., of Lyman Beecher, D. D., ed. Charles
Beecher (New York, 1865), I, 48.

22. President Dwight's Decisions of Questions Discussed by the Senior Class
in Yale College, in 1813 and 1814 [From stenographic notes by Theodore Dwight]
(New York, 1833), pp. 5, 6ff.

23. "Harvard Commencement," Columbian Centinel, September 2, 1815, p. 1,
col. 4,

24. Warren Guthrie, "Development of Rhetorical Theory in America, 1635-
1850," Speech Monographs, XV (1948), 70.

25. Morison, op. cit, pp. 187 ff.

26. Van Wyck Brooks, The Flowering of New England, 1815-1865, new and
rev. ed. (New York, 1937), pp. 12 ff.

27. Letter of Dr. Beecher to Dr. Woods, November 12, 1820, quoted in Auto-
biography, Correspondence, Etc., of Lyman Beecher, D. D., I, 436, 437.

28. "On the Relation Between the Clergy and People, and some Prevailing
Misapprehensions of the Ministry," Christian Examiner, II ( January & February
1825), 5, 6. y

29. "Remarks on the Character and Writings of Fenelon," in The Works of
William Ellery Channing, llth ed. (Boston, 1849), I, 167.

30. Letter of Channing to William Smith Shaw, quoted in Memoir of William
Ellery Channing, I, 99.

31. Guthrie, op. cit., 62.

32. Hugh Blair, Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, Lecture 1. Numerous
editions of Blair's Lectures have appeared since the Edinburgh edition of 1783;
therefore, references to specific Lectures are more meaningful than page references
and shall be used hereafter.

33. Robert Morell Schmitz, Hugh Blair (New York, 1948), p. 1.

34. Ibid., p. 3. ^

35. Lecture 1.

36. Ibid.

37. Letter of the Columbia College Professors to the Trustees, Feb. 20, 1809,
quoted in Helen P. Roach, History of Speech Education at Columbia College*
1754-1940 (New York, 1950), p. 23.

38. Cf . Anthony F. Blanks, "An Introductory Study in the History of the Teach-
ing of Public Speaking in the United States," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stan-
ford, 1927; Herbert Edgar Rahe, "The History of Speech Education in Ten Indiana
Colleges, 1820-1938," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wisconsin, 1939. Rahe (p.
384) concludes, "In general, we may concur with Blanks that the early history of

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY COLLEGES 175

speech education in the East tended to be duplicated in later colleges in the Middle
West."

39. William Tudor, Letters on the Eastern States (Boston, 1821), pp. 345, 346.

40 Andrew P. Peabody, Harvard Reminiscences (Boston, 1888), p. 88.

41. Ibid., pp. 88, 89.

42. Brooks, op. cit., p. 43.

43. Edward T. Channing, Lectures Read to the Seniors in Harvard College
(Boston, 1856), p. 31.

44. See Dorothy I. Anderson, "Edward T. Channing's Philosophy and Teaching
of Rhetoric/* unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa, 1944; "Edward T. Channing's
Definition of Rhetoric," SM, XIV (1947), 81-92; "Edward T. Channing's Teaching
of Rhetoric," SM, XVI (August, 1949), 69-81.

45. "Eloquence and Eloquent Men," New-England Magazine, II (February,
1832), 93-100.

46. Life and Letters of Catharine Sedgwick, ed. Mary E. Dewey (New York,
1871), p. 121.

47. Columbian Centinel, July 19, 1794, p. 3.

48. Letter of Dr. Beecher to Dr. Leonard Woods, November 12, 1820, quoted
in Autobiography, Correspondence, Etc., of Lyman Beecher, I, 436, 437.

49. Ota Thomas, "The Teaching of Rhetoric in the United States During the
Classical Period of Education," in A History and Criticism of American Public
Address, ed. William Norwood Brigance (New York, 1943), I, 205.

50. Daniel William Scully, "The Influence of James Rush, M. D, upon Ameri-
can Elocution Through His Immediate Followers," unpublished M.A. thesis, Loui-
siana, 1951, pp. 48-85.

51. (New Haven, 1830).

52. Catalogue of the Officers and Students in Yale College, 1830-1831.

53. Peabody, Harvard Reminiscences, p. 90.

54. Scully, "The Influence of James Rush," pp. 48-85.

55. Ibid.

56. James E. Murdoch, A Plea for Spoken Language (Cincinnati and New
York, 1883), p. 102.

57. Peabody, Harvard Reminiscences, p. 91; Scully, "The Influence of James
Rush," pp. 48-85.

58. Analytic Elocution (Cincinnati and New York, 1884), Preface, p. iv.

59. (Boston, 1893).

60. Frederick W. Haberman, "The Elocutionary Movement in England, 1750-
1850," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1947, p. 43.

61. Ibid.

62. T. D. Woolsey, "Address Commemorative of Chauncey Allen Goodrich,"
quoted in John P. Hoshor, "Lectures on Rhetoric and Public Speaking by Chauncey
Allen Goodrich," SM, XIV (1947), 2.

63. Chauncey Goodrich, Select British Eloquence (New York, 1852), Preface.

64. Roach, Speech Education at Columbia College, p. 40.

65. George Gary Bush, History of Higher Education in Massachusetts (Wash-
ington, 1891), pp. 229, 232; see also Franklin Carter, Mark Hopkins (Boston,
1893), pp. 143, 144.

66. Bush, Higher Education in Massachusetts, p. 261.

67. P. M. D. Williamson, "Speech at Bowdoin," unpublished manuscript of a
speech delivered at the Convention of the Speech Association of America, Decem-
ber, 1951.

68. "Annual Report of Professor John McVickar, 1833," and "Report of Mr.
William Betts, 1830," quoted in Roach, Speech Education at Columbia College,
pp. 48-49.

69. Guthrie, op. cit , p. 69.

70. Donald Elmer Polzin, "Curricular and Extra-Curricular Speech Training at

176 RHETOKIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Illinois College, 1829-1900," unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Illinois, 1952,
p. 4.

71. Ibid., p. 3.

72. Rahe, "Speech Education in Ten Indiana Colleges," p. 410.

73. Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams (New York, 1931), p. 66.

74. Ibid., p. 69.

75. Ibid.

76. Ibid.

77. Ibid.

78. Thomas E Coulton, "Trends in Speech Education in American Colleges,
1835-1935," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1935, p. 43.

79. Ibid.9 p. 46.

80. Samuel Eliot Morison, The Development of Harvard University, 1869-1929
(Cambridge, 1930), pp. 66-67.

81. Ibid.

82. Ibid.

83. Ibid.

84. Ibid.

85. Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1855-53.

86. Ibid.

87. Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1853-54.

88. Roach, Speech Education at Columbia College, p. 73.

89. Register of the University of California, 1870.

90. Louis Franklin Snow, The College Curriculum in the United States (New
York, 1907), p. 173.

91. Morison, Development of Harvard University, pp. 74-81.

92. Murdoch, A Plea for Spoken Language, p. 9.

93. Catalog of Allegheny College, 1875-1876, p. 32.

94. Roach, Speech Education at Columbia College, p. 77.

95. Register of the University of California, 1870.

96. Polzin, "Speech Training at Illinois College," pp. 9, 10.

97. Ibid.,p 9.

98. Willard B. Marsh, "A Century and a Third of Speech Training at Hamilton
College," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXXIII (February, 1947), 23-27.

99. Ibid., p. 26.

100. Ibid.9 p. 23.

101. Ibid., p. 27.

102. Bliss Perry, And Gladly Teach (Boston and New York, 1935), p. 56.

103. Ibid., p. 56.

104. Ibid.

105. Ibid.

106. Ibid., p. 67.

107. Ibid., p. 57.

108. Ibid.9 p. 135.

109. Ibid.

110. The Silver and Gold (University of Colorado student newspaper), Feb. 21,
1893.

111. The Coloradoan (1900), p. 108.

112. Bush, Higher Education in Massachusetts, p. 156.

113. Ibid., p. 252.

114. Catalogue of Oberlin College for the Year 1891-92.

115. Catalogue of Northwestern University, 1893-94.

116. Catalogue of the University of Wisconsin for 1893-94.

117. Catalogue of the University of Oregon, Eugene, 1896-97.

118. University of California Annual Announcement of Courses of Instruction
in the College at Berkeley for the Academic Year 1899-1900.

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH- CENTURY COLLEGES 177

119. Catalogue of the Officers and Students of the University of Alabama, for
the Academic Year 1898-99.

120. Calendar of the University of Michigan, 1899-1900.

121. Catalogue of the University of Illinois, 1898-99.

122. W. J. Bryan and Mary Baird Bryan, The Memoirs of William Jennings
Bryan (Chicago, 1925), p. 87.

123. Thomas C. Trueblood, "Pioneering in Speech/' QJS, XXVII (December,
1941), 503-511, see also Giles Wilkeson Gray, "Research in the Histoiy of Speech
Education," QJS, XXXV (April, 1949), 156-163.

124. Ibid.

125. Catalogue of the University of Oregon, 1896-97.

126. Calendar of the University of Michigan, 1899-1900.

127. Columbine (University of Colorado school annual), I (1893), p. 38.

128. Catalogue of the University of Illinois, 1893-94.

129. Huron College Catalogue, 1901-02.

130. John F. Genung, The Study of Rhetoric in the College Course (Boston,
1892), p. 12.

131. Coulton, "Speech Education in American Colleges," p. 139.

O The Elocutionary Movement and its
Chief Figures

MARY MARGARET ROBB

The Elocutionary Movement in America derived from the English
schools of elocution and until the beginning of the nineteenth century
showed little originality. The greatest single influence upon teachers
and textbook writers during this early period was Dr. James Rush who
introduced scientific aspects of vocal production in his book, Philosophy
of the Human Voice, published in 1827. Teaching of elocution was
given a new impetus; it was concerned not only with the delivery of
the speaker or reader as it affected the audience but with an analysis
of vocal production in physiological and physical terms. Because of a
demand for such training by students who planned to be ministers,
lawyers, or political leaders, elocution became a part of the educational
program. The organization of lyceums and reading groups, the popu-
larity of the public lecturer and reader, and the growth of the American
theatre also contributed, perhaps indirectly, to a new emphasis upon
training in the effective use of voice and gesture.

This was an ideal time for such a movement to flourish. The country
itself was expanding, pushing its physical boundaries westward and
extending its mental boundaries to accommodate new and controversial
ideas. It is the period often referred to as "romantic"; the potentials for
the development of the greatest, free, educated people seemed self-
evident.1 Commager characterizes the American of the nineteenth cen-
tury as both romantic and sentimental: "He was sentimental about
Nature in her grander aspects and liked rolling rhetoric in his orators.
He thought the whole history of his country romantic and heroic and
on every Fourth of July and Decoration Day indulged in orgies of
sentiment/7 2 This was a time which demanded orators, ministers, lec-

178

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 179

turers, and actors who could make themselves heard over the noise of
a lusty and vociferous populace.

The oratory of this period proclaimed the ideals of America and
debated her problems; the lyceum popularized the lecturer as a form
of entertainment combined with instruction; and the theatre, especially
in urban centers, became an accepted part of the cultural pattern. When
Puritan restraints were somewhat relaxed, the public which had been
starved overlong demanded a generous and hearty dramatic fare in all
public speech. In America Learns to Play, Dulles says: "It was an age
of oratory, of theatricalism. The actors were the rivals of Clay, Calhoun,
and Webster, and they tried to outdo them at their own trade." 3

In answer to a demand for training in elocution many people became
teachers (they were often trained for other professions such as medi-
cine or the theatre ) and, in step with a new interest in science, tried to
add to their scientific knowledge of the vocal instrument and thus
improve their methods of instruction. The Philosophy of the Human
Voice gave them direction and inspiration. Walker's Elements of Elocu-
tion was the most popular English textbook used in the American col-
leges at the beginning of the century, but Sheridan, Steele, Austin,
Burgh, Scott, ,and Whately all exerted an influence on these early elo-
cutionists. However, the day of English dominance had passed and the
Rush System was to stimulate many American teachers of elocution to
write their own textbooks. From an examination of college catalogs,
Guthrie found that the American textbooks used from 1821-1850 were
those written by Ebenezer Porter, James Barber, Merritt Caldwell, and
William Russell. The only textbook that rivalled them in popularity
was Walker's Elements of Elocution, and the most used textbooks were
those written by Porter.4

Although declamations, disputations, and training in rhetoric had
been a part of the college program from the beginning, it was not until
the nineteenth century that special chairs were endowed and speech
training organized into different courses. Elocution, sometimes of-
fered as a separate study, was often combined with the course in com-
position. At Amherst, in 1842-1843, a course was offered for Freshmen
called Elements of Orthoepy and Elocution which was supplemented
by weekly exercises in declamation and composition. At the same time,
the University of Alabama was offering a course, Elocution, which in-
cluded original compositions in Latin and English that were given
publicly by the Freshmen every Wednesday. In 1861, Harvard gave a
course entitled Elocution which included: Lessons in Orthoepy, Lessons
in Expression, Lessons in Action, and Rhetorical Analysis and Reading.
The Yale catalog for the same year describes a Sophomore course as
Elocution, Declamation, and Composition.5

180 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

There was an interest in elocutionary training in the lower schools as
well as in the colleges. William Russell, the first editor of the American
Journal of Education (from 1826-1829) was particularly interested in
the improvement of the "expressive faculties," regulated "by the laws
of thought, as dictated by the sciences of logic and grammar, adorned
by the graces of rhetoric." G Russell wrote many books to assist the
teacher in the lower school. Some of the textbooks written by other
elocutionists were shortened so that they could be used in the grammar
schools; Porter's Rhetorical Grammar was one of of the most popular.
In addition, there were innumerable "speakers" and "readers," consist-
ing mainly of selections of poetry and prose but usually offering some
elocutionary theory. The famous McGuffey readers gave credit to
Walker for the elocutionary principles recommended to teacher and
pupil.

Desire for education was rivalled only by the desire to be entertained.
The theatre had broken through the puritanic prejudice by the end of
the eighteenth century. In the first decades of the nineteenth century,
the stars were usually English actors, but by mid-century native talent
was recognized. The theatre circuit extended from Boston to New
Orleans and on to California, and more than fifty established stock
companies were scattered throughout the country in 1850. 7

The -professional readers were closely related to the theatre; most of
them were actors who, when not playing in the theatre, gave programs
of readings from Shakespeare or from well-known poets. This kind of
entertainment was especially popular during Lent and was approved
by many people who were still suspicious of the theatre as a form of
entertainment. Anna Cora Mowatt, the author of Fashion, claims the
distinction of being the first American woman to read professionally.
After appearances in Boston and Providence, she appeared at Stuy-
vesant Institute, New York, on November 13, 1841, reading selections
from Scott, Mrs. Hemans, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Lord Byron.
Shortly thereafter, there were six women elocutionists who were giving
programs throughout the country.8 Among the actors, Edwin Forrest,
Edwin Booth, George Vanderhoff, and James E. Murdoch were popu-
lar readers.

During this early period in the development of elocution in America,
the teacher was often an itinerant who gave lectures and programs of
readings in addition to his work as an instructor. He often gave private
lessons in several educational institutions in an area. Sometimes he set
up his own private school of elocution.

The School of Practical Rhetoric and Oratory, organized by Russell
and Murdoch, was one of the first private schools. Andrew Comstock
was operating his Vocal and Polyglot Gymnasium in Philadelphia at

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 181

about the same time. The National School of Elocution and Oratory
was established by J. W. Shoemaker in Philadelphia in 1866. By the end
of the century, the professional school had developed into an institution
of importance. Four of the largest and best known schools were devel-
oped in the last quarter of the century: the School of Expression which
later became Curry College, Emerson College of Oratory, the Colum-
bia School of Expression, and the Phillips School of Oratory. The first
two were in Boston, the second two in Chicago.9

It seems clear that professional, educational, and cultural conditions
were congenial to the development of elocution. To appreciate what
the elocutionists were teaching their students, attention will now be
focused on several of the principal figures in the movement. Rush, him-
self, is reserved for special study elsewhere in this volume. We shall be
concerned chiefly with: Ebenezer Porter, James Barber, William Rus-
sell, James E. Murdoch, and Samuel Silas Curry. Barber and Murdoch
were devoted to the Rush system; Porter and Curry were eclectic in
their theories and methods, taking what they considered best from
other elocutionists and adding ideas of their own. They were all sin-
cere in their desire to improve the speaking and reading of the Ameri-
can people, and they were all interested in studying the vocal mecha-
nism so that they might evolve methods of teaching which would follow
the cues that they found in nature. It is true that they often labelled
current methods as "mechanical" or "natural," and that there was variety
in the systems followed, but the objectives of the leaders were pretty
much the same. The followers were the ones, who, by misinterpreta-
tion and lack of serious study and appreciation, sometimes brought
discredit upon the elocutionary movement.

As in England, the century before, the clergy were among the first
to emphasize the need for training in elocution. Rev. Ebenezer Porter,
Bartlett Professor of Sacred Rhetoric in Andover Seminary, was one of
the pioneer teachers and textbook writers. He believed that the worst
faults in elocution originated from a lack of feeling but recognized also
the faults of diction, monotonous inflections, inappropriate stress, and
timing. Since Walker's Elements of Elocution did not quite satisfy his
needs as a teacher, he wrote his own textbook.10 Porter, like Rush, was
interested in developing a scientific basis for voice training. Yarbrough
believes him to be the first teacher to consider speech from the point
of view of anatomy and physiology.11 His Lectures on Eloquence
includes four chapters on these aspects of speech.

Porter divided the study of elocution into five parts: articulation, in-

182 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

flection, accent and emphasis, modulation, and action. His approach to
the problem of improving the reading and speaking of the student was
an analysis of the faults as they represented deviations from good con-
versational speech and a program of practice to substitute good habits
for the undesirable ones. Porter believed that the student should be
allowed to read without interruption in class exercises. When he had
finished, the teacher pointed out the mistakes, demonstrated by read-
ing the exercise correctly, then asked the student to repeat the parts
that were not well done.12

In his discussion of articulation, Porter attributes defective sounds to
bad organs, bad habits, or difficulties of production. He also suggests
that there is a connection between the temperament of the reader and
his articulation.

A sluggish action of the mind imparts a correspondent character to the action
of the vocal organs, and makes speech only a succession of indolent, half-
formed sounds, more resembling the muttering of a dream than clear articu-
lation. . . . Excess of vivacity, on the other hand, or excess of sensibility, often
produces a hasty, confused utterance.13

Like many of the early elocutionists, Porter was interested in pro-
moting good health in connection with elocutionary training. He be-
lieved that the quantity or fullness of the voice depended upon the
strength of the lungs and, in turn, believed that exercises in using the
voice with as much force as possible would develop the lungs. Stam-
mering he attributed to "some infidelity of the nervous temperament";
the cure depended upon improving the bodily health as a means of
giving "firmness to the nervous system," 14

Although Porter attempted to follow Walker, he was really closer to
Sheridan and other English elocutionists who placed understanding
and feeling ahead of rules. A preliminary training of the voice Porter
considered necessary, but the most important part of effective delivery
was the emotional sincerity of the speaker:

After getting command of the voice, the great point to be steadily kept in
view, is to apply the principles of emphasis and inflection, just as nature and
sentiment demand. In respect to those principles of modulation, in which the
power of delivery so essentially consists, we should always remember too
that, as no theory of passions can teach a man to be pathetic, so no descrip-
tion that can be given of the inflection, emphasis, and tones, which accom-
pany emotion, can impart this emotion, or be a substitute for it.15

Porter used notations for inflectional changes and to indicate modula-
tion.16 However, any system for the representation of sound he felt to
be inadequate without the aid of the teacher's voice. The examples used
were colloquial in order to encourage the reader to use conversational
tones which, "being conformed to nature/' were instinctively right: ir

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 183

In contending with any bad habit of voice, let him break up the sentence
on which the difficulty occurs, and throw it, if possible, into colloquial form.
Let him observe in himself and others, the turns of voice which occur in
speaking, familiarly and earnestly, on common occasions. Good taste will then
enable him to transfer to public delivery the same turns of voice, adapting
them, as he must of necessity, to the elevation of his subject.18

According to Porter, modulation, or variety in pitch and quantity, and
inflection must conform to the sense of the material. The pitch of the
voice, Porter says, should be "the middle key or that which we spon-
taneously adopt in earnest conversation." 19

Porter uses the terms emphatic stress (including time and loudness)
and emphatic inflection, to indicate methods of pointing up an idea or
intensifying an emotion. The principle of emphatic stress, he explains,
is that "it falls on a particular word, not chiefly because that word be-
longs to one class or another in grammar, but because, in the present
case, it is important to sense."

Teachers of elocution were interested in action as well as voice; many
of them used the mechanical system presented in Austin's Chironomia.,
at least as a starting place. Barber states that his Practical Treatise on
Gesture is abstracted chiefly from Chironomia. Russell gives credit to
this source but says that he adapted the exercises to his own methods.20
Porter in his discussion of action in terms of gesture, attitude, and
expression of countenance, speaks of two extremes which should be
avoided. The first encumbers the speaker with so much technical regu-
lation that he becomes affected and mechanical in manner; the other
condenses all precepts and preparatory practice into the advice, "Be
natural." His attitude toward this aspect of elocution is as follows: "The
body is the instrument of the soul, the medium of expressing internal
emotions by external signs. The less these signs depend upon the will,
on usage, or on accident, the more uniform are they, and the more cer-
tainly to be relied on." All bodily movement, he thought, should be
spontaneous and reflect the speaker's mental and emotional reactions
to the material.21

Ebenezer Porter, according to his associates in Andover Theological
Seminary, was an outstanding person— an able teacher, writer, and
minister. As a teacher he excelled in pointing out with precision faults
in composition, enunciation, and gesticulation, and in prescribing cor-
rectives.22 According to Rowe, he had an attractive personality and was
always kindly in his class criticisms of the "crude homiletical achieve-
ments." 23

In the History of Andover Theological Seminary, Dr. Porter is com-
mended highly for his work. In 1827, he was selected by his colleagues
to be the first president of the Seminary. He continued his work as pro-

184 KHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

fessor of rhetoric until 1831; he was assisted by William Russell from
1828 to 1829, and from 1829 to 1831 by Jonathan Barber.24

Porter's skill in writing, no doubt, accounts in part for the popularity
of his textbooks and the influence he exerted outside theological circles.
In 1824, he published a pamphlet, Analysis of Vocal Inflection as
Applied in Reading and Speaking. The textbook, Analysis of the Prin-
ciples of Rhetorical Delivery, was published in 1827, and the shortened
and simplified form designed for grammar schools, The Rhetorical
Reader, in 1831. By 1843, it was used in the schools in every state of
the Union. A new enlarged edition was published in 1848. As was
stated earlier, Porter's textbooks were the most popular of the Amer-
ican books on elocution. Guthrie gives the following list of adop-
tions: Arnherst 1827-1828, Brown 1826-1832, Dartmouth 1828-1840,
Georgia 1844-1848, Gettysburg 1846-1849, Hampden-Sydney 1839-?,
Middlebury 1828-1845, Mount Holyoke 1830-?, Wesleyan 1832-1849.25
According to the review of the book in the North American Review,
July, 1829, Porter's Analysis of the Principles of Rhetorical Delivery was
the best of its kind.26

Ebenezer Porter contributed immeasurably to the growth of the elo-
cutionary movement in the United States, He developed his own
theories, based upon those of the English elocutionists, directed to
the problems of teaching American students. He wrote in a clear pre-
cise style and attempted to select materials for reading which would
develop a good conversational style. Although he was first of all a min-
ister, he sought to improve American elocutionary training.

Ill

The attempt to make elocution scientific and to develop better meth-
ods of instruction led first to a study of the simplest elements, the vowel
and consonant sounds, and to an emphasis upon the improvement of
articulation as the beginning of all speech training. American speech
may have been so careless that the need justified the great effort exerted
to make students sound the "vocal elements" properly before attempting
reading exercises. Barber was most emphatic in his belief that "Elocu-
tion should always attend to articulation, as the primary object; and in
the first instance, it should be prosecuted alone, as a distinct branch of
the art, and prosecuted until perfection in it is attained." According to
Barber's Grammar of Elocution, there were forty-six vocal elements
which depended upon certain definite positions of the organs of speech
—seventeen vowels and twenty-nine consonants.27

In the preface to the second edition of Philosophy of the Human
Voice, Dr. Rush states that Jonathan Barjb^ was-tira&^JEga^^to use

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 185

his system of elocution. By appointing Dr. Barber to its department of
el~utio— Harvard j)ecame j£e grgt chartere(j institution that gave "in-
fluential and responsible approbation of the work." 28 Barber was an
English physician who had devoted himself to elocution even before
meeting Dr. Rush. He had published books of readings and recitations,
and manuals for pronunciation and gesture earlier, but his most impor-
tant textbooks were written when he was teaching at Yale, Harvard,
and Andover Seminary. A Grammar of Elocution was published in 1830,
and the simplified edition designed for the common schools titled, An.
Introduction to the Grammar of Elocution, in 1834. These two books
rested heavily upon the theories of Rush, but credit was also given to
Steele for theories concerning melody, and to Austin for those on
gesture.

Barber undoubtedly developed his own methods of teaching but
used Rush's terminology and based his course of training on the prin-
ciples set forth in The Philosophy of the Human Voice. It has been
mentioned that Barber emphasized training in articulation; he provided
tables of the vocal elements and many exercises to be used in the prac-
tice of vowel and consonant sounds and their combinations. He believed
that practice in unison, no matter how large the class, was a very effec-
tive way of teaching. 'When time allows/' he says, "it may be well for
single scholars in turn to follow the teacher's voice, before the class
make an attempt together; but the final concerted movement ought
never to be dispensed with." When the class progressed to the study of
sentences, they analyzed the sentence and decided upon the intonation
which the idea demanded and then repeated it together.

Murdoch records that the students sometimes rebelled against the
long period of practice on the elementary sounds which Barber re-
quired. However, Wendell Phillips testified that he had gained much
from his class at Harvard. "Whatever I have acquired in the art of im-
proving and managing my voice," he says, "I owe to Dr. Barber's sys-
tem, suggestions, and lessons. No volume or treatise on the voice except
those of Rush and Barber has ever been of any practical value to me." 29

The following analysis of the pronunciation of the word man will
give some idea of the meticulous way in which Barber worked:

In pronouncing the word MAN the lips are first intentionally brought to-
gether and pressed in a certain way against each other, and air being at the
same time forcibly impelled from the throat, a sound is heard which some-
what resembles the lowing of an ox. The lips which before were held in
somewhat forcible contact are now separated, the mouth is opened and its
cavity is put into a particular shape; and air being again impelled from the
throat during this position of the mouth, the sound A is heard as that letter
is pronounced in the word a-t. Finally this last sound being completed, the
tip of the tongue is carried upwards from the lower part of the mouth, and

186 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

air issuing from the throat in a forcible manner during this state of the parts,
the peculiar sound appropriate to the letter N is heard. In order to obtain
a demonstration of the particulars of this description, let the word MAN be
pronounced in a drawling manner, and let the process of articulation be care-
fully attended to during its continuance. Let the position which the lips first
adopt be maintained for some time while the murmur, by which the sound
M is produced, is continued from the throat; avoiding at the same time to
proceed to sound A: then ceasing to sound the M, let the A be next sounded
alone, observing the particular shape which the mouth assumes during the
sound, as well as the character of the sound itself, after this stop again, and
whilst the tip of the tongue is pressed against the roof of the mouth and the
upper gums, let the N be slowly murmured through the organs. After the
three sounds of the word have thus been separately pronounced, let MAN
be slowly uttered, so that each separate sound and the coalescence of them
with each other, may be distinctly perceived at the same time.30

English elocutionists, Walker, Sheridan, and Steele, were all inter-
ested in the study of sounds and of pronunciation, and in the explana-
tion of the rhythms of prosody. Haberman states that they laid the
foundation for the later development of speech therapy, voice training,
and phonetics.31 The early American elocutionists usually acknowl-
edged their debt to these men and often used their theories and nota-
tions. Barber used Steel e's notations for time and stress in Exercises in
Reading and Recitation, and in the selections of poetry and prose in the
Grammar of Elocution.32

Barber, for example, made an attempt in his later writings to explain
the rhythm of speech in terms of the vocal mechanism and its adjust-
ments for speaking. He felt that the speaker in following the rhythm
of respiration would find it necessary to pause more often than punc-
tuation indicated. A measure in speech he defined as a heavy or
accented portion of a syllabic sound and a light and unaccented portion
which were produced in one effect by the organ of the voice. "The
larynx," he explains, "is a compound organ. It performs the function of
an air tube and of a musical instrument. The first is essential to respira-
tion, the second to speech. ... In the production of all immediately con-
secutive sounds the larynx acts by alternate pulsations and remission.
On this account, two heavy or accented syllables cannot be alternated
with each other while a heavy and light one can/' 33

Although Barber put great emphasis upon practice of individual
sounds" arid" exercises, he stated that an effective elocutionary training
could not depend upon a multiplicity of rules, and indicated that he was
not in favor of Walker's rules for inflection based upon grammatical
construction.34 He believed that Dr. Rush had succeeded Tn'*mafcing
elocution a scientific study because he had described the functions of
the voice and "listened to Nature as few ears have listened." He de-
fended the system against criticisms that it was mechanical by saying

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 187

that it showed the student the natural way of speaking effectively. In
a pamphlet in which he criticized the review of Rush's book which
appeared in the North American Review, he asks: "But is natural speak-
ing any other than a right use of the functions of the voice?" 35

There were many elocutionists in this early period who were devotees
of Rush and tried, as Barber did, to make his theories practical. Often
they gave credit to the English elocutionists, but their interest and pride
in the American scientist who had given them a physiological basis
upon which to develop their methods was always evident. A few of the
outstanding followers of Rush were: Merritt Caldwell, Andrew Corn-
stock, Henry N. Day, Samuel Gummere, Dr. E. D. North, James E.
Murdoch, William Russell, and George Vanderhoff.36 They represented
the fields of medicine, education, and the theatre.

William Russell taught in a variety of different schools, including
Yale^ Harvard, Princeton, Andover Seminary, Boston Public Latin
School, and Abbott Female Seminary. He lectured in teachers' insti-
tutes all over New England and established a seminary for teachers in
New Hampshire. Russell became the first editor of the American Jour-
nal of Education in 1826. In 1828 he assisted Dr. Porter, and again,
from 1842 to 1844, he taught in Andover Theological Seminary and in
the Theological Institute in East Windsor, Connecticut. In 1844 he
established the School of Practical Rhetoric and Oratory with James E.
Murdoch.37

Russell was a leader in education and wrote altogether some thirty
books, sixteen of them concerned with elocution. Murdoch was an actor
and reader, and together they made a good combination, the one inter-
ested primarily in improving the methods of teaching in the schools and
the other in improving the public performances of speakers, readers,
and actors. They were both indebted to Rush and Austin for much of
their elocutionary theory, although Russell mentions Walker, especially
in his early writings; and Murdoch discusses the contributions of Steele
and Walker in his Plea for the Spoken Language. Their chief contribu-
tion is found in Orthophony which was written while they were work-
ing together in the school.

Russell believed that the elocutionary training should start in the
lower schools. The methods that were most commonly used he thought
were top literal, and mechanical; "In many schools," he says, "the young
pupil never has his attention called, definitely or consciously, to the fact
that the letters of the alphabet are phonetic characters, the whole value
of which consists in the sounds which they represent; in many, he may

188 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

pass through the whole course of instruction without being once called
to practice the constituent elementary sounds of his own language; in
very many, there is no attempt made to exercise and develop, modify,
or cultivate, in any form, the voice itself." Russell criticized also the
mechanical pronunciation of words without any interpretation of the
meaning of the content read. Even with quite small children, he felt
that time should be spent in analyzing the meaning and pointing out
the significant words.38

Russell was convinced that elocution should be a part of educational
training but thought that it was usually taught very badly. He describes
the two extremes in bad instruction in the following manner:

We have, in our current modes of instruction, little choice between the
faults of style arising from what the indolent incline to term "a generous neg-
lect" through fear of "spoiling" what they claim as "nature," and those faults,
on the other hand, which are attributable to literal and mechanical modes of
cultivation, and consist in the obtrusion of arbitrary details and artificial
forms. Hence the results which characterize the one, in the gross errors of
slovenly and low habit, coarse and disgusting manner, uncouth effect, bawl-
ing vehemence, and gesticulating violence, of what is sometimes dignified
with the name of "popular oratory"; and hence the opposite traits of finical
taste, affected elegance, false refinement, and studied contrivances of effect,
which belong to perverted culture.39

Every teacher must have reasons for correcting the emphasis, the inflec-
tions, and pauses which a student uses in reading— these reasons,
according to Russell, are the rules.40

Elocution, in the late forties, had developed to the stage of opposing
theorists. It was not enough to convince educators that there was a
need for elocutionary training, but it was also necessary to defend the
methods used in teaching. Whately believed that rules vitiated style and
insisted that nature could be depended upon to produce effective
speech if the speaker or reader understood and was emotionally respon-
sive to the content itself. Russell placed Whately in the group of
extremists who did not believe in cultivation of the voice and says of
him: "A true and efficient friend of education, in other respects, thus
sides with the opponents of culture, by speaking from the preferences
of personal taste and arbitrary opinion, instead of the laws of analogy
and universal truth/' 41 Russell believed the rules he used to be the
"truest forms of nature embodied in practice."

Around the middle of the century, a kind of touchiness and "on the
defensive" attitude is noticeable. The itinerant teacher was not always
welcomed as he had been earlier. Russell was not allowed to continue
teaching at Harvard; he was cordially received in 1825, but twenty
years later was denied the privilege of teaching a class in elocution.42

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 189

Murdoch attributes the failure of their school in Boston to an announce-
ment made in the high schools barring boys trained in private schools
from entering the declamation contests.43 Rush and his followers were
disappointed that his system had not caught on as generally as they had
predicted.

The elocutionary movement, which had moved so rapidly, and per-
haps f addishly, in the first part of the century, was beginning to meet
antagonism in academic circles. It was becoming too much the per-
former's art and did not meet the needs of the students who were being
trained for the professions of law and the ministry.

James E. Murdoch may be said to represent that phase of elocu-
tionary training which was concerned with the training of public enter-
tainers—readers and actors. However, he did not restrict his work to
the~stage but devoted much of his time to teaching and lecturing. Mur-
(fodhTwks a devotee of the Rush system throughout his life. Although
he met Dr. Rush when his theories were first introduced, his interest
did not develop until advised by Edwin Forrest, the leading actor of
the day, to consult Rush for proper methods to improve the quality of
his voice. Murdoch records that he became intimately acquainted with
Dr. Rush, and received "rather in the capacity of a friend than of a
professional teacher, a practical exposition of the underlying principles
of his 'Philosophy of the Human Voice'. . . ." 44 In Murdoch's textbook,
Analytic Elocution., published in 1884, he affirms his earlier conclu-
sions: that training the voice was the most important part of elocution,
that the speaking voice may be developed in the same strength, beauty,
and flexibility as the singing voice, and that the Philosophy of the
Human Voice set forth the most complete system of vocal training.
Murdoch was a leader in the elocutionary movement for fifty years.

As an actor, Murdoch toured the country from Boston to San Fran-
cisco. He appeared with the leading actors of the day, Edwin Booth,
Edwin Forrest, and Fanny Kemble. According to his critics, he lacked
the fire of Forrest or Booth and was never a favorite in tragedy although
he excelled in comedy. The New York Herald for September 8, 1857,
probably analyzed his acting accurately in the following criticism:
"Every scene bears marks of careful study, and is elaborated to the mi-
nutest details. . . . Nothing is slurred over, nothing is overdone. . . . But
this is all. With great natural and acquired advantages Mr. Murdoch is
not a genius. He lacks the art that conceals art and is without that happy
inspiration that gives life to the creation." 45

It is also possible that Murdoch's career as an actor was not alto-

190 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

gether satisfactory to him and that he sought to supplement it through
teaching and lecturing. His health was not good and occasionally, as in
England, he was forced to cancel engagements. The fact is that he
retired from the stage from time to time and devoted himself whole-
heartedly to advancing the Rush system of elocution and to giving lec-
tures and readings. He became a very popular reader during the Civil
War. As soon as he heard that his favorite son had joined the Army, he
closed his engagement in the theatre in Pittsburgh and went to Wash-
ington. He gave patriotic readings in the hospitals to entertain the
soldiers, in both houses of Congress to inspire patriotism, and in many
Northern cities as benefit performances to raise money for the hospital
fund. Odell records programs of Shakespearian readings given by
Murdoch in New York as early as 1845, again in 1872 when he read
in the Tabernacle and brought to the program something of the "stateli-
ness of the old school," and as late as 1883.46

During the latter part of his life, Murdoch spent most of his time on
his farm in Ohio, yet he participated in a Shakespearian Festival in
Cincinnati Music Hall in 1883, playing Marc Antony and Hamlet.
According to the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, Mr. Murdoch could
be heard easily and his voice had the "same ring as of yore." 47 On May
22, 1889, Murdoch played Charles Surface to Mrs. John Drew's Lady
Teazle in a benefit performance of School for Scandal given "by the
citizens of Philadelphia to their representative actor." Mrs. Drew in her
autobiography testifies to his ability as an actor and to his charm as a
man. She says that he never imitated Forrest but was always himself
"which was rare in an American actor of that time." 48

Murdoch believed in training the voice but not according to such
arbitrary rules and prescribed grooves that the individual's character-
istic speech was changed to imitate that of the teacher. In The Stage
or Recollections of Actors and Acting, written after fifty years of expe-
rience, he deplored the neglect of training for actors :

A century ago elocution of a declamatory style was the prevailing dramatic
tone, but yielding to the changes of fashion, it gradually assumed the form
of what was termed natural speech; which in its turn, at the dictate of novelty
became eccentric, and however paradoxical it may appear, unnatural. Of late
years the elocution of the English and American stage, with but few excep-
tions, has been, no matter how offensive the term may be considered, rather
a matter of instinct than the result of intelligent vocal culture.49

In Analytic Elocution, Murdoch defines elocution as "the art of so
employing the Quality, Pitch, Force, Time, and Abruptness of the voice
as to convey the sense, sentiment, and passion of composition or dis-
course in the fullest and most natural manner, and at the same time with
the greatest possible gratification to the ear." 50 The student, according

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 191

to Murdoch, should first learn to control the vocal mechanism and then
to master the vocal elements.

Although Murdoch did not publish any books until between 1880-
1884, most of his elocutionary theory had appeared earlier in Orthoph-
ony which, according to the preface, derived from the Rush system
and presented the "vocal gymnastics" used by Murdoch in his teaching.
Both Orthophony and Analytic Elocution present the theories of Dr.
Rush in a simple, readable style. The innovations and additions which
can be credited to Russell and Murdoch indicate greater precision and
accuracy in isolating the sounds of the language and an awareness of
the necessity of fitting the methods to the student and his needs. The
following example shows their attention to the study of speech sounds:

ai, in air, though not recognized by Dr. Rush, nor by any other writers on
elocution, as a separate element from a, in ale, is obviously a distinct sound,
approaching to that of e, in end, but not forming so close a sound to the ear.
. . . o, in or, and o, in on, are apparently considered by Dr. Rush and by
Walker, as modifications of a, as in all. Admitting, however, the identity of
quality in these elements, their obvious difference in quantity, and in the
position and pressure of the muscles by which, as sounds, they are formed,
together with the precision and correctness of articulation demand a sepa-
rate place for them in the elementary exercises.

Further observation indicated the a sounds in awe, all, arm, and an were
not diphthongal as Rush believed. The final r was distinguished from
the initial r which was a harder sound, "executed by a forcible but brief
vibration of the tip of the tongue against the first projecting ridge of the
interior gum, immediately above the upper teeth." The list of the
elementary sounds as given in Orthophony is very similar to our present
classifications: oral and laryngeal sounds, a-11, a-rm, e-ve, oo-ze, e-rr,
e-nd, i-n, ai-r, u-p, o-r, o-n, a-le, i-ce, o-ld, ou-r, oi-1, u-se; labial sounds,
b-a-be, p-i-pe, m-ai-m, w-oe, v-al-ve, f-i-fe; palatic sounds, c-a-ke, g-ag,
y-e; dental sounds, d-i-d, t-en-t, th-in, th-ine, a-z-ure, pu-sh, cea-se,
z-one, j-oy, ch-ur-ch; aspirate sounds, h-e; nasal sounds, n-u-n, s-ing,
i-n-k; lingual sounds, 1-u-ll, r-ap, fa-r. Although m is not listed as a nasal,
the description of the sound indicates that Murdoch and Russell were
aware of its nasal quality: "The 'subtonic' m is articulated by a very
gentle compression of the lips, attended by a murmur in the head and
chest, resembling somewhat that which forms the character of the
'subtonic' b, but differing from it in the sound being accompanied by a
free, steady equable "expiration* through the nostrils." 51

The consideration of the quality of the voice was important to the
early elocutionists. The "improved" quality designated by Dr. Rush as
orotund was considered most desirable. Rush describes this quality as
"sub-sonorous" and states that it was rarely heard in ordinary speech

192 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

and never in its highest excellence except when cultivated. Other quali-
ties which were heard in speaking and were useful especially in read-
ing and acting were: whispering, guttural, natural, and falsetto.52
Pectoral, nasal, and oral were terms used to describe the excess of a
particular kind of resonance.53

Of all the teachers thus far mentioned, Murdoch was the one most
interested in quality as an aspect of speech. He was eager to improve
the quality of his own speech so that he could successfully interpret
roles in both comedy and tragedy. As a result of this interest, he ana-
lyzed the voices of the actors he knew and observed many interesting
vocal characteristics. For example, he observed in some voices a "vocal
catch in the glottis." He attributes this peculiarity of speech to English
actors, specifically Garrick, who may have imitated King George III,
and was in turn imitated by Kean whose speech was then copied by
McCready and Forrest. He describes it as follows:

... a sudden catch of the glottis, which causes a short cough-like sound, to
be heard previous to the articulative movement of the voice. . . . This pecu-
liar organic act is the result of a dropping of the jaw and consequent depres-
sion of the larynx; it gives strength to the muscles which are called into play
and control the organs of vocality, thus enabling the speaker to execute that
abrupt movement by which he expels the vowel-sound from what may be
called the cavernous parts of the mouth, that space which includes the roots
of the tongue, the glottis, and pharynx. This deeply-aspirated quality of "the
voice is a strong element of expressive utterance of passionate language in
the drama.54

The description suggests the characteristic of the voice which Rush
termed abruptness, a term obviously devised to describe the stage
speech then in vogue but later discarded.

Murdoch saw a close relationship between breath control and vocal
quality. He explained very clearly the action of the diaphragm as "the
bellows of the vocal organs," and used the terms effusive, expulsive, and
explosive to designate the three forms of expiration. "The effusive
breath may be said to flow, the expulsive to rush, and the explosive to
burst into the outer air. These three forms of breathing, it will be found,
when converted into vocality, represent the three forms which lan-
guage assumes in its varied utterance from tranquility to passion/* 55

In A Plea for Spoken Language, published in 1883, and based on the
lectures which Murdoch had given on elocution, he states that although
elocutionists through a period of fifty years were indebted to Rush,
his principles had never been accepted entirely, and hence there had
been no uniformity of result. He speaks also of the "too prevalent idea
on the part of school authorities that elocution, as a special study, is
inexpedient; or worse that it cannot be successfully taught in connection

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 193

with the multifarious studies of the schools." 56 Nevertheless, Murdoch
and his co-worker, William Russell, did much to popularize the Rush
system, and their influence on the development of the elocutionary
movement itself is immeasurable. They were convinced that methods
of teaching which were based on scientific principles were in accord
with nature and, therefore, would allow the student to develop his own
characteristic speech and develop it to its maximum capacity.

',; vi

The^c:ho01 of ExPr®ssion, incorporated in 1888, is a fine example of
a nineteenth-century private school which is alive today. Its founder,
Samuel Silas Curry, through study and practice, evolved a philosophy
oPSocution' which had a firm basis in psychology. Although he at-
tempted to reconcile theories of elocution which seem to be con-
tradictory, he did succeed in establishing a practical and effective
method of teaching, usually known as the "think~the-thought" method.
-Brr Curry was born in 1847 in the mountains of Tennessee. He was
reared in a strict, religious home and encouraged to prepare for the
ministry. Following the usual pattern of education for the ministry, he
studied elocution along with theology. Since Boston University was
Curry's choice for his theological training, he began the study of elocu-
tion in the School of Oratory under Lewis B. Monroe, a student of
Delsarte. In 1873, Dr. Alexander Graham Bell's opening lecture at the
School of Oratory stimulated such an interest in the science of the voice
that Curry decided to become a teacher instead of a preacher. When
Dean Monroe died in 1879, Curry, who had completed his Masters
degree the year before, was asked to carry on the work. In 1880, the
University conferred the Ph.D. degree upon him; in 1883 he was made
Snow Professor of Oratory, and in this capacity organized special
classes in elocution. Five years later, the trustees allowed him to organ-
ize the institution which was called the School of Expression. Mrs.
Curry, former teacher and student under Monroe, taught with him and
together they made the school one of the most popular in the country.
Very soon the School of Expression offered three years of training and
an additional postgraduate year. Special courses were given for clergy-
men, teachers, and people with speech defects such as stammering.57
Many talented students attended the School of Expression; not a small
number were leaders in the reinstatement of speech in the college and
university curriculum in the early part of the twentieth century.

Of the elocutionists studied, Curry was perhaps the one most eager
to know all there was to be known about the functioning of the vocal
mechanism and to find the best methods of teaching students to use

194 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

speech effectively. He was not satisfied with any method then in use
in the teaching of delivery. He sampled them all, studying with many
teachers at home and abroad. In England, he studied with Emil Behnke
and Lenox Brown; in France, he took lessons from Regnier, head of the
National School of Acting; and in Italy he studied with Francesco
Lamperti, professor of singing at the Milan Conservatory. Although he
was critical of the theories of Delsarte, Curry states that he studied
with all the known teachers of that system. In the United States, he
studied with the following: Steele MacKaje, Alexander Graham Bell,
Alexander Melville Bell, and, of course, mwis B. Monroe.58

Because he had been exposed to so many different kinds of instruc-
tion, Curry's theories were eclectic and his writing often ambiguous.
Altogether, Curry wrote fourteen books. Province of Expression and
Foundations of Expression, published in 1891 and 1907,59 set forth
his philosophy as clearly as any of his writings. There is much repetition
and elaboration of idea in all of them. Although little credit is given to
the contemporary psychologists, their influence is marked. Curry's
greatest emphasis was upon an active, trained mind and imagination.
The necessity of working "within outward," of being a unified person
in which the mind stimulated the body to natural expression, and the
recognition of individual differences were all tenets of the Curry school.
There was something of the crusader about Dr. Curry. He recognized
the weakness of elocutionary training as he observed it in the late
nineteenth century and he proposed to reform it. He articulated the
principle that elocution should be primarily a training of the mind and
the development of an ability to think creatively.

Curry gave credit to Rush for laying the scientific foundation for the
study of the voice but contended that at least half of his system was
useless. Rush made no distinction between the normal and abnormal,
he said, and did not distinguish between the intentions of nature and
what was merely a bad habit:

Still he did analyze correctly the length of inflections, and while his "shock
of the glottis" is wrong and has been given up by the best teachers, yet that
there is a stress in the speaking voice, a radical and vanish different from the
singing voice, was clearly shown by him. Teaching, as he did, the importance
of analyzing into its fundamental nature the speaking voice, the special incor-
rect physical action in faults has been found and a more radical treatment of
defects made possible. The elements of melody having been partly explained,
men have been set to observe more carefully the phenomena of speech; so
that Rush's system has indirectly rendered important service in unfolding
knowledge which must be understood in improving delivery.60

The followers of Rush used teaching methods which Curry found to
be too unrepresentative and imitative. Some of the faults he found most

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 195

distressing and contradictory to nature were: all action was merely
gesture, grammatical structure dictated pauses and often inflections,
and delivery revealed a lack of freedom and originality. Curry ob-
served that mechanical methods had been tried and found wanting,
most clergymen and actors having discarded the Rush system as too
artificial and conventional. However, public readers, he stated, often
exhibited all the undesirable characteristics of the student trained in
this school. They showed no signs of "mental assimilation of the char-
acter," no indication of "dramatic instinct" but merely demonstrated
elocutionary tricks of the throat which were "untrue to nature." 61

Murdoch is mentioned by Curry as a good example of the mechanical
school which was based upon Rush principles. Curry criticized him
because he put too much emphasis upon the voice and because he con-
cerned himself with the artificial tones : orotund, guttural, and aspirate.
Examples are taken from Murdoch's textbook, Analytic Elocution, to
illustrate the methods to which Curry objected. Murdoch's direction for
reading the line, "Come back, come back, Horatius," states that it must
be read with a rising, discreet third. According to Curry, the sentence
could be read in fifty different ways but the one chosen is the most
foreign to the meaning. "It could only be read so," he says, "when a
man is trying to carry out a 'system' which is to him greater than
nature." 62

From a close study of Murdoch's theories of elocution, it is obvious
that he too was interested in following nature. He was devoted to the
Rush system not because of its mechanical aspects, but because he
thought it gave him a firm scientific base from which to work to
develop a natural delivery.

Curry did not approve of Whately's method and stated that the
purely natural method could not work unless the student had normal
speech. Whately's influence was detrimental to good speaking, accord-
ing to Curry, and had encouraged the speaker to follow wild impulses
thus "reducing all oratorical delivery to chaos." The indirect results of
Whately's work, however, Curry thought helpful because he criticized
the artificial methods and emphasized the importance of not placing
the mind on "mere modes of delivery." 63

The Delsarte System, Curry characterized as too artificial and specu-
lative: it was not founded upon nature but was an attempt to "place
upon nature a pre-conceived artificial conception." Whereas Murdoch
held that pantomime should be in the background so that the voice
could predominate, Curry states that Delsarte gave pantomime the
most important place. "Neither is right," says Curry. "The great center
of consciousness must be upon thought and action of the mind, and
these two natural languages voice and action having a great element

196 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

of spontaneity, must not be brought too much into the foreground of

consciousness/' 64

On the other hand, Curry praised Delsarte as the most original in-
vestigator of the century and listed those parts of his theory which he
had found helpful in evolving his own philosophy of speech. He makes
special mention of; the preliminary training or the attuning of the whole
body, the fact that Delsartian methods were always based upon prin-
ciples, the belief that pantomime belonged to the whole body and was
not restricted to gesture, and finally, the theory that there is an inter-
relationship of "co-existent and co-essential elements/* 65

Because of the association of the word elocution with the training
and theories Curry found unsatisfactory, he used the word expression
instead. To him it was a much bigger and more meaningful word. One
cannot help wishing that he might have reinstated the original word
elocution with its proper connotation. Yet the word expression he did
use in a special way to indicate his philosophy of speech training. He
defines it thus: "Expression implies cause, means, and effect. It is a
natural effect of a natural cause, and hence is governed by all the laws
of nature's processes. The cause is in the mind, the means are the voice
and the body/5 66

From his wide background of experience, Curry articulated a philoso-
phy of speech which resembled that of the first teacher mentioned,
Ebenezer Porter. But because of his vantage point in the century, he
was able to go beyond any of the others in charting methods of instruc-
tion which would be effective. His methods were eclectic and repre-
sented a culmination of the work of many conscientious, enthusiastic,
and progressive elocutionists. Curry's belief that man must function as
a unified whole made it impossible in good delivery for the voice to
overbalance the action, or for the outward expression to be detached
from the mental analysis of the material to be read. Communicating
one s thoughts and feelings implied for Curry merely the deepening of
natural processes. Following James' psychology, he stated that thinking
consisted of first, concentration upon one point, and second, a leap of
the mind to another point. Thus the need for training in making transi-
tions and in using the pause effectively.67

While all of the older elocutionists mentioned in this chapter stressed
the need for thought and feeling in the interpretation of literature,
Curry was the first one to devise exercises for mental training as a nec-
essary part of the teaching program. Training the mind, according to
Curry, should supersede training of the voice and body.

Curry believed in a three-way interactionism between mind, voice,
and body. Voice and action, he often reiterated, must not be left to acci-
dent but be developed into a flexible mechanism which will ade-

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 197

quately express the mind or soul of the speaker. Vocal training he care-
fully distinguished from vocal expression as the "establishment of
normal conditions of the body and voice." As did many of the earlier
teachers, Curry placed great emphasis upon proper breathing and
breathing exercises. He also advocated the use of exclamations for prac-
tice because they were closely associated with action and spontaneously
established natural conditions of speaking and breathing.68

Training of the body as a whole was one of Curry's principles. Ac-
cording to his students, he devoted some time to gymnastic exercises
of Delsartian design. The "decomposing exercises" were to relax the
muscles so that the body could be organized around a center. The
principle of functioning as a whole was never disregarded, and the
exercises were always considered merely practice to enable the speaker
to respond naturally and normally to mental stimulation.69

In vocal training, the term tone-color was used often by Curry; he
considered it very important and difficult to attain. He defines it in
Foundations of Expression as "the modulation of the overtones of the
human voice by imagination and feeling." To discover the presence of
tone-color, Curry suggests that the student read two very different
passages—one didactic, the other imaginative and sympathetic. The
difference in the voice— its pitch, pause, inflection, and especially its
quality— gives the reading tone-color.70

Curry set very high requirements for the teacher— he must inspire his
students as well as train them. The teacher of expression should be an
educated man, he maintained, because he must be able to "penetrate
the deepest needs of his students"; he must also understand "the effect
upon the personality of all subjects." 71 His breadth of culture must be
practical— not only scientific but literary and artistic as well. Without a
love of art and literature, Curry felt it would be impossible for the
teacher to inspire his students and stimulate the creative faculties of
their minds. From all evaluations of his work, Curry seems to have
measured up well to his own criteria.

VII

The nineteenth-century elocutionists made significant contributions
to the field of speech'educatioiu As a group, they showed an amazing
amount of vitality and originality, As teachers and theorists they fitted
into the pattern of education ^HcK xesponded to the increased inter-
est in science, emphasizing first the physiological and later the psy-
chological aspect of»speedi*«Becau$e of their efforts, elocution became
a part of the educational plan which enlarged the program to include
practice in writipg aacjf speaking English in addition to similar courses

198 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

in the classical languages. Later in the century, when, because of its
tendency to become artificial and exhibitionary, it lost its place in the
curricula of many of the institutions of higher learning, the study of
elocution was fostered in private schools by teachers like Samuel Silas

Curry.

Although some elocutionists declared the subject to be distinct from
the study of rhetoric and more closely related to science than to any
other subject, rhetoricians emphasized delivery during this century as
an integral part of speech-making. The orator, lawyer, minister, and
actor were all concerned with and characterized by their manner of
speaking. Since the speech of the average American was indistinctly
articulated and his taste in public speakers demanded a kind of exag-
gerated and florid quality, there was a great demand, especially during
the first half of the nineteenth century, for elocutionary training in both
the lower schools and the colleges. Many of the teachers of elocution
were not on the regular faculties of these institutions but were itinerant
teachers. Often they established themselves in a community and gave
lessons in a number of schools in the area; sometimes they started pri~
vate schools of speech. From their writings, it appears that they were
interested in developing a science of speech, in correcting speech
defects, in isolating the speech sounds, and in developing skills in
reading and speaking. Later teachers have produced more specialized
books in these same areas, but the early textbook writers did the spade
work for the specialists.

The private schools multiplied during the century. Murdoch and
Russell founded the School of Practical Rhetoric and Oratory (one of
the first) in 1844, in Boston. Later the same city was to boast three
of the best-known schools: the School of Expression, Emerson College
of Oratory, and the Leland Powers School. Charles Wesley Emerson
founded his school in 1891. He based his methods of vocal training
upon the four stages of the natural development of the mind: the
colossal, the melodramatic, the realistic, and the suggestive. Delsarte's
methods were used in training the body. Leland Powers was a student
of Dr. Curry and subscribed to his methods of teaching. In Chicago
there were three equally famous schools: Phillips School of Oratory,
Columbia School of Expression, and the School of Speech of North-
western University founded by Robert McLean Cumnock. Arthur E.
Phillips was famous for his use of natural or tone drills—a method
based upon the value of paraphrasing for a clearer understanding of
the material read. Mention should also be made of the Byron King
School of Oratory in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which was established
in 1888. All these schools deserve special credit for carrying on the
study of elocution and other phases of speech training when the edu-

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT

199

cational institutions took little responsibility for this kind of education.

Porter, Barber, Russell, Murdoch, and Curry were leaders in the
movement to make the study of vocal delivery an important part of edu-
cation. They defined it as the use of voice and action to interpret ideas
and emotions but were more interested in the development of the voice
than in any other aspect of the speaking situation. Nevertheless, these
teachers did not neglect the relationship of body to mind, and the
importance of good health to the speaker.

Following the example of the English elocutionists and lexicogra-
phers, there was a definite emphasis upon individual speech sounds,
and articulation exercises were the usual introduction to the study of
elocution. There was a special emphasis on the analysis of vocal quali-
ties which was not found in the teaching of elocution in England.

The early American elocutionists continued the study of inflection
which had so engrossed the teachers and writers of the previous cen-
tury; yet they did not follow the theory of Walker that inflection was
always related to grammatical construction. The followers of Rush
found inflectional changes similar to pitch changes in music and used
many musical terms to describe the melody and cadences of speech.
Notations that were used derived from musical notations and were
similar to those used by Steele in Prosodia Rationalis,

The most influential elocutionists, if they can be selected according
to the popularity of their textbooks, believed that elocutionary train-
ing depended upon rules, and did not agree with Whately that all rules
were inimical to spontaneous and emotionally sensitive speaking and
reading. They were aware of the two extremes in the theory of training
and tried to stay between the two. The importance of understanding
the content of the material and of feeling the emotion inherent in it,
they all agreed, was of first importance, but the vocal mechanism must
be so disciplined that it could respond properly.

Although the private school of elocution was destined to carry most
of the responsibility for this kind of training in the latter part of the
century, the teachers themselves transmitted the influence of the early
elocutionists to twentieth-century speech education in America. For ex-
ample, Thomas C. Traeblood, S. S. Hamill, Robert I. Fulton, and John
R. Scott, who were pioneers in founding present-day speech depart-
ments, were all students of James E. Murdoch.72 And over ten thousand
students have studied in the Curry School, among them such famous
teachers as: Lee Emerson Bassett, Smiley Blanton, Sara Stinchfield
Hawk, Azubah Latham, and Gertrude Johnson.

The representative elocutionists considered in this chapter were
agreed that an art must rest upon a science. Although ffiey iised differ-
ent meffi&as/t&ey were all working to perfect a delivery that would

200 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

reveal effectively thought and emotion. At the end of the century,
because psychological inquiries had made mental processes clearer, the
method of "thinking-the-thought" before reading became the most
popular method. However, it is not the only one that persisted in
twentieth-century teaching of delivery. Many of the theories, methods,
and exercises which were advanced by the earlier elocutionists are to
be found in modern textbooks.

Notes

1. Henry B. Parkes, The American Experience (New York, 1947), pp. 149,
187-188.

2. Henry Steele Comager, The American Mind (New Haven, 1950), p. 24.

3. Foster R. Dulles, America Learns to Play (New York, 1940), pp. 110-111.

4. Warren Guthrie, "The Development of Rhetorical Theory in America, 1635-
1850," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1940, p. 244.

5. Thomas E. Coulton, "Trends in Speech Education in American Colleges
1835-1935," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1935, pp. 70, 80.

6. William Russell, "Cultivation of the Expressive Faculties," American Journal
of Education, III (1858), 58.

7. George R. MacMinn, The Theatre of the Golden Era in California (Cald-
well, Ida., 1941 ),ch. I.

8. George C. D. Odell, Annals of the New York Stage (New York, 1928), IV,
586-587.

9. Mary Margaret Robb, Oral Interpretation of Literature in American Colleges
and Universities (New York, 1941), pp. 131-132.

10. Ebenezer Porter, Analysis of Principles of Rhetorical Delivery as Applied in
Reading and Speakmg (Andover, 1836), p. 1.

11. R. Clyde Yarbrough, "Horniletical Theory and Practice o£ Ebenezer Porter,"
unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 1942, p. 140.

12. Porter, Analysis, p. vii.

13. Ibid., pp. 23, 25.

14. Ibid., pp. 109-110.

15. Ibid., p. viii.

16. Ibid., p. x.

17. Ebenezer Porter, The Rhetorical Reader (New York, 1835), pp. 28-38.

18. Porter, Analysis, p. 41.

19. Ibid., pp. 93, 103.

20. Jonathan Barber, Practical Treatise on Gesture (Cambridge, 1831)j William
Russell, American Elocutionist (Boston, 1844), p. 200.

21. Porter, Analysis, pp. 144-147.

22. Lyman Matthews, Memoir of the Life and Character of Ebenezer Porter,
D.D. (Boston, 1837), p. 254.

23. Henry K. Rowe, History of Andover Theological Seminary (Newton, Mass.,
1933), p. 57.

24. General Catalogue of the Theological Seminary, Andover, Massachusetts,
1808-1908 (Boston, 1908), pp. 4, 20.

25. Guthrie, op. cit, p. 200.

26. North American Review, XXIX (1829), 38-67.

27. Barber, Grammar of Elocution (New Haven, 1830), pp. 13, 19.

28. James Rush, The Philosophy of the Human Voice (Philadelphia, 1833), p.
xlii.

29. James E. Murdoch, A Plea for Spoken Language (Cincinnati, 1883), p. 101.

30. Barber, Grammar, pp. 17-18.

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 201

31. Frederick W. Haberman, "The Elocutionary Movement in England, 1750-
1850," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell, 1947, p. 176.

32. Jonathan Barber, Exercises in Reading and Recitation (York, Pa., 1825).

33. Barber, Grammar, pp. 125-126.

34. Ibid., p. 168.

35. Barber, Strictures on Article II of the North American Review for July, 1829
(New Haven, 1829), p. 9.

36. Henry N. Day, Art of Elocution (New Haven, 1844), Samuel Gummere, A
Compendium of the Principles of Elocution on the Basis of Dr. Rush's Philosophy
of the Human Voice (Philadelphia, 1857); Dr. E. D. North, Practical Speaking as
Taught at Yale College (New Haven, 1846); W. Russell and J. E. Murdoch, Or-
thophony (Boston, 1845), George Vanderhoff, The Art of Elocution (New York, 1847).

37. Dictionary of American Biography (New York, 1935) XVI, 250.

38. Russell, "Cultivation o£ the Expressive Qualities," Am. J. Ed., pp. 327-329.

39. Ibid., pp. 332-333.

40. Russell, American Elocutionist,, 4th ed. ( Boston, 1846 ) , p. 5.

41. See "Cultivation of the Expressive Faculties," Am. J. Ed., pp. 333-334;
Richard Whately, Elements of Rhetoric (Boston, 1851); J. W. S. Hows, Practical
Elocutionist (New York, 1849).

42. Loc. cit.

43. Murdoch, Plea, pp. 110-111.

44. Ibid., pp. 106, 108, 109.

45. Odell, Annals, VII, 6; Roberta Fluitt White, "The Acting Career of James
Edward Murdoch," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State, 1945, p. 36.

46. Odell, Annals, V, 144; IX, 334-335; XII, 342.

47. White, pp. 105-108.

48. Mrs. John Drew, "Autobiographical Sketch of Mrs. John Drew," Scribners
(November, 1899), XXVI, 566-568.

49. Murdoch, Stage, pp. 43, 45.

50. Murdoch, Analytic Elocution (Cincinnati, 1884), p. 11.

51. Russell, Orthophony, pp. 17-29.

52. Rush, Philosophy, p. 162.

53. Murdoch, Analytic Elocution, p. 10.

54. Murdoch, Stage, pp. 96-98.

55. Murdoch, Analytic Elocution, pp. 12, 21.

56. Murdoch, Plea, pp. 9, 12.

57. Poems by S. S. Curry, ed. Nathan Haskell Dole (Boston, 1922), pp. 1-2.

58. Cyclopedia of American Biography, X, 160-161.

59. Samuel Silas Curry, Province of Expression (Boston, 1891); Foundations
of Expression (Boston, 1907).

60. Curry, Province, p. 325.

61. Ibid., pp. 310-325.

62. Ibid., p. 316.

63. Ibid., pp. 333-334.

64. Ibid., p. 350.

65. Ibid., p. 358.

66. Samuel Silas Curry, Lessons in Vocal Expression (Boston, 1895), p. 310.

67. Ibid., p. 19.

68. Curry, Foundations, p. 66.

69. M. Oclo Miller, "The Psychology of Dr. S. S. Curry as Revealed by His
Attitude Toward the Mind-Body Problem" unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-
versity of Iowa, 1929, p. 41.

70. Curry, Foundations, p. 159.

71. Curry, Province, pp. 326, 418.

72. Thomas C. Trueblood, "A Chapter on the Organization of College Courses
in Public Speaking," Quarterly Journal of Speech Education, XII (February, 1926),
3-4.

Steele MacKaye and the
Delsartian Tradition

CLAUDE L. SHAVER

The work of Francois Delsarte, French teacher of vocal music and
operatic acting in Paris from 1839 until 1871, was of great significance
in speech training and the theatre in late nineteenth-century America,
Although Delsarte was never in the United States and never published
his theories in any form, the so-called "Delsarte System of Expression"
was probably the most popular method of speech training in the United
States during the thirty years from 1870 until 1900.

In spite of the popularity and prominence of the Delsarte system, no
adequate formulation of its principles and practices was ever made and
American teachers and actors were left largely in the dark regarding
the basic principles of the system. Delsarte himself published nothing
in his own name.

Many books and magazine articles were written during the thirty
years of Delsarte's popularity, each purporting to present the "true"
Delsarte system, yet none of these ever received the unqualified support
of more than a few of those who called themselves "Delsartians." In the
two decades from 1880 to 1900 the Delsarte system was a subject of
perennial dispute, as witnessed by the large number of articles defend-
ing and attacking the system that appeared in Werner's Magazine, the
leading speech publication of the period, and the numerous speeches
pro and con as reported in the Proceedings of the National Association
of Elocutionists*

In the absence of any authoritative statement of the Delsarte system,
it was inevitable that the system should be siezed upon, expanded and
distorted to almost absurd lengths. Charles Bickford, writing in The
Voice? commented:

Breathing exercises, as old as-well, as old as I am,-the Worcester and Web-
ster "Key to Pronunciation," Guilmette contortions, light gymnastics, numer-
ous systems of useful and ever popular calisthenics, Dr. Rush's theories, les-

202

STEELE MAC KAYE 203

sons from Murdoch and Russell, stage tricks and traditions which have been
handed down for generations, and a thousand other things in heaven and
earth not dreamt of in Delsarte's philosophy, have been tied on and sailed
up on the tail of the dear old Frenchman's kite as if they belonged to it.2

The dilettantism which afflicted the system was well expressed by L. P.
writing in "Letter Box" in The Voice:

I was interested in John Howard's remarks upon the Delsarte method, for I
confess I do "leave the pages of the Delsarte method with a puzzled and dubi-
ous countenance," and wish that it could be simplified in some way. I have
finally persuaded my husband to allow me to teach it as I enjoy the "art,"
and it is a great source of amusement to me, and so much more satisfactory
than afternoon tea-parties or church-fairs.3

In commenting on the teaching of the Delsarte system at Chautauqua,
New York, by Mrs. Emily Bishop, Elsie M. Wilbor wrote, "As presented
there, the system is on a plane with the Swedish or any other purely
gymnastic drill . . . ," and commented later in the same article, "One
point on which I take issue with Mrs. Bishop is her statement that Del-
sarte work reduces flesh, but will not make it. . . " 4 Here the Delsarte
system had become a reducing method; the April, 1889, issue of
Werners Voice Magazine and several subsequent issues, carried an
advertisement for "The Delsarte corset"!

In this welter of unauthorized books, misunderstandings, distortions,
and quackeries, only one man was considered able to give an adequate
formulation of Delsarte's principles. The man was Steele MacKaye, the
man who had originally introduced the Delsarte theory to America.
S. S. Curry wrote in 1891:

Mr. Steele MacKaye is thoroughly competent to give to the world an outline
of the system of Delsarte, but he has allowed himself to be engrossed with
other things, and neglected to give to the world an adequate presentation of
the method of the master who so loved and honored him.5

This paper deals primarily with Steele MacKaye, the introduction of
the Delsarte system into America and MacKaye's contribution to the
system; secondarily it treats of other early figures in the movement,
chiefly the Rev. William R. Alger, Unitarian minister, and Lewis B.
Monroe, teacher, and the most influential book of the period, Delsarte
System of Oratory. As an introduction to this material, a brief life of
Delsarte and a summary of his "system" is given.

Frangois Alexandre Nicholas Cheri Delsarte was born in Solesme,
France, November 19, 1811. 6 Delsarte's early childhood was spent in
poverty and privation, according to various factual and fictional biogra-

204 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

pMes.7 At the age of nine, he and his younger brother were taken to
Paris by his mother, where she and the brother both soon died. In some
way Delsarte became acquainted with a musician by the name of Pere
Bambini, who became his first teacher. Delsarte also studied with a
M. Deshayes and a M. Choron. From 1826 to 1830 he attended the Con-
servatoire. He sang at FOpera-Comique, the Ambigu, and the Varietes,
but was not a success in the theatre. He later became choir director at the
church of the Abbe Chatel.8

The year 1839 is given as the date when Delsarte opened his school,
but that he taught before this date is indicated in the biographies of two
of his pupils, Darcier and Hermann-Leon. However, it is probably true
that he did not open a school formally until 1839. There still exists a
large book with the title School of Moral and Scientific Singing, which
contains a "constitution" for this first school, and considerable material
to indicate that the speculative philosophy on which the system was
founded was well advanced and the basic structure completed by this
time.9

Delsarte's ability as a teacher was praised by such critics as W.
Warner, writing in L'Eclair,10 Escudier in La France Musicale^ and
Jules Janin in Journal des Debats.12

An examination of recently available material, consisting of some
material in Delsarte's own handwriting, and more in the form of notes
of his pupils, reveals some rather startling things.13 First, Delsarte was
not a speech teacher in any real sense of the word, but was, primarily,
a teacher of instrumental and vocal music and an opera coach. In his
later years, he seems to have coached some legitimate acting and to
have offered instruction to clergymen. Recitation was used, but only
as a method of teaching acting. Second, his system was not exactly a
system of teaching either speech or music, but was a pseudo-philosophy,
claiming to be a science, which organized all arts and sciences accord-
ing to a plan which was based, in essence, on orthodox Catholic doc-
trine. In a period in which science was pushing forward rapidly, Del-
sarte's "System'* was essentially a throwback to a conservative orthodox
view under the guise of being a science. The "science" on which the
system is founded is, however, purely speculative. In a brief summary
of the system written by MacKaye in French, the "science" which would
reveal the fixed laws of art is stated as "the possession of a criterion of
examination against which no fact can protest." This criterion Delsarte
found in the Holy Trinity. All tilings, according to the system, show a
trinitary organization. For example, any object has height, width, thick-
ness; time consists of past time, present time, future time, etc.:

The science of Mons. Delsarte consists of directing the light of this criterion
of examination on all things, and in virtue of this idea of the trinity, to dis-

STEELE MAC KATE 205

cover their intimate (interior) organization, and to explain the raison d'etre
of their external products. On this examination and on the science thus estab-
lished, he bases all his art.14

By the use of this "system" of trinitary division, Delsarte organized
all arts and sciences into an educational system and into a teaching
method. Specifically, this concept was applied to music, particularly
vocal music, and acting, the arts which Delsarte knew best. This trini-
tary division arises from the Holy Trinity, and each member of the Holy
Trinity governs one of the elements of the trinity of any object or
idea. Thus man is divided into life, mind, and soul. These are governed
respectively by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Life, mind, and
soul are expressed by certain agents: vocal sound (apart from words)
expresses life, words express mind, movement expresses soul. This con-
cept of movement as the expression of soul possibly accounts for the
emphasis put upon gesture and pantomime by American Delsartians.
It seems unlikely that Delsarte placed any more emphasis on the physi-
cal aspects of his system than on the vocal, but in America, the physical
aspects became the basis of the system and the Delsarte system became,
essentially, a system of physical culture.

By another principle, the "principe du circumincession," which Curry
translated as "principle of intertwining," the body expresses not only
soul, but, to a degree, both life and mind.15 Thus arises the familiar
trinitary division of the zones of gesture and movement. Each of these
major zones is divided into three minor zones, making in all nine zones
of gesture. In addition to the zones, the movements of the body express
the three essences of being, i.e., life, mind, and soul.

There are three basic forms of movement: movement about a center,
called normal, which is vital and expresses life; movement away from
a center, called eccentric, which is mental and expresses mind; move-
ment toward a center, called concentric, which is moral and expresses
soul. These three forms of movement mutually influence each other and
thus give rise to nine forms, normo-normal, normo-eccentric, normo-
concentric, eccentro-normal, eccentro-eccentric, eccentro-concentric,
concentro-normal, concentro-eccentric, concentro-concentric. The forms
of movement give rise to nine attitudes or states, and also to nine inflec-
tions or movements. All gestures, movements, or attitudes may be classi-
fied under these forms and each gesture, movement, or attitude has a
special significance.

The vocal apparatus is also triune, and each element of the trinity
expresses one of the essences of being, life, mind, or soul. Speech arises
from three agents: the inciting agent, the lungs, which is the vital or
life principle of sound; the resonating agent, the mouth, which is the
intellectual or mind principle of sound; the vibratory agent, the larynx,

206 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

which is the moral or soul principle of sound. All vocal effects, arising
from these fundamental agents express life, mind, or soul, and may be
so classified. In addition, the Delsarte system re-evaluates language
according to the principle of the trinity and assigns degrees of value
to the various parts of speech varying from one to nine,

Delsarte's "Cours D'Esthetique Appliquee" seems to have consisted of
a series of public lectures and demonstrations on his theories, and a
course of private instruction. The public lectures were generally nine
or ten 16 in number, given weekly, and seem to have consisted of two
parts, a lecture on some aspect of the system, often based on a chart or
diagram, and a practical demonstration by pupils, and, at times, by
Delsarte himself. Occasionally after the lecture there was a discussion.
Angelique Arnaud, writing in 1882, said:

Some years before his death Delsarte substituted for his concerts, lectures
in which he explained his scientific doctrines and his philosophy of art. He
also supplied the place of song by the recitation of certain fables selected from
La Fontaine.17

In a lecture delivered before the Curry School of Expression in Boston
in November, 1898, Mrs. Steele MacKaye described the morning lessons
in much the same terms;

The first part of the morning was given to the exposition of philosophy-the
explanation of some theory, or chart After the exposition came the prac-
tical part: the recitation of a fable, a scene from a play, or perhaps a song,
any of which was rendered sometimes by a pupil, sometimes by Delsarte
himself.18

In addition to these lectures or lessons, Delsarte gave individual
instruction. There is no material available to indicate just what
happened in these sessions, which were held daily, but presumably Del-
sarte taught his pupils specific songs and roles and worked on articula-
tion, movement, gesture, etc. Whether Delsarte used any kind of gym-
nastic exercises in his teaching was much argued later by American
Delsartians. The scant evidence available would indicate that he did
not. This question is discussed later in this paper.

A recent study of Delsarte's pupils has revealed that of fifty-four
who can be classified, twenty-two were singers, twelve were instru-
mentalists, seven were actors, five were writers, four were composers,
two were lawyers and three were painters.19 Some of these pupils were
well known; others are merely names. Of the entire list of pupils, only
one, Steele MacKaye, is definitely known to be an American.20

STEELE MACKAYE 207

James Steele MacKaye, playwright, actor, director, and theatre in-
ventor, was born in Buffalo, New York, on June 6, 1842. 21 He first
studied painting, but eventually decided on the theatre as a career. In
preparation for this career, MacKaye decided to study acting in Paris.
He went to Paris with the intention of studying at the Conservatoire,
but was persuaded to study with M. Delsarte instead.

MacKaye began his studies in October, 1869, and lessons continued
daily until July, 1870. 22 So rapid was MacKaye's progress, so quickly
did he grasp the essentials of the system, and so brilliantly did he apply
his knowledge, that after a few months he was accepted as a co-worker
as well as a pupil and began doing a part of the teaching:

. . . within five months of their first meeting, at Delsarte's own desire and re-
quest, Mr. MacKaye was himself lecturing and teaching in Delsarte's Cours,
with a success which aroused as much enthusiasm as astonishment in Del-
sarte's "lovable, loving and generous nature." 23

Clearly Delsarte considered MacKaye a brilliant pupil and thus was
established a close and significant relationship of disciple and master—
a relationship understood and appreciated by both parties. MacKaye
became Delsarte's chosen successor— the son who was to carry on the
work of the master.24

This close relationship was abruptly terminated by the chaos of the
Franco-Prussian war of 1871 and the resulting siege of Paris— a chaos
which drove MacKaye back to America and Delsarte into refuge in his
native village of Solesme where he lived in dire poverty on the charity
of a cousin.25 MacKaye, returning to America fired with enthusiasm for
the Delsarte system, immediately began making plans for the intro-
duction of the Delsarte system into America. Very shortly, however,
word reached him of Delsarte's destitute condition. Two new friends,
Rev. William R. Alger (the biographer of Edwin Forrest) and Prof.
Lewis B. Monroe (Dean of the School of Oratory of Boston University)
suggested to MacKaye that he give a lecture on Delsarte, the proceeds
of which would go to Delsarte's relief.26 MacKaye accepted this sug-
gestion with typical enthusiasm and immediately set about preparing
the lecture and arranging for its presentation. At the same time Mac-
Kaye and his friends thought of bringing Delsarte to America to found
a great school of art similar to his school in Paris.

On March 21, 1871, MacKaye delivered at the St. James Hotel, Bos-
ton, his first lecture on Delsarte. This was the first time that the name
and system of Francois Delsarte was presented to the American pub-
lic.27 In April the lecture was twice repeated in Boston at the Tremont
Temple to large audiences and was given at Harvard University on
April 21, 1871, with Henry W. Longfellow as the chairman.28 Later,

208 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

MacKaye lectured at Steinway Hall in New York twice in April and
several times in May. He also lectured in Brooklyn at the invitation of
Henry Ward Beecher.29

Thus MacKaye spread the gospel of Delsarte. These lectures, and the
impress of MacKaye's vivid personality, evidently made a profound
impression, and the scheme for bringing Delsarte to America neared
completion.

In the interim, Rev. Alger had gone abroad intending to see Del-
sarte. He was never to carry out this intention, however, for Delsarte
died July 22, 1871, before Alger reached Paris.30 With Delsarte s death
the great incentive was gone, and the plan for an American "Cours
D'Esthetique Appliquee" lost its vital force.

MacKaye lectured widely in the ensuing years. There is record of
many lectures; many have been unreported. During the autumn and
winter of 1874, MacKaye was on an extensive lecture tour under the
aegis of James Redpath.31 He had an engagement of twenty nights in
Boston alone. Undoubtedly, Monroe and Alger were instrumental in
setting up this series. Nine of these lectures were given under the gen-
eral heading "Philosophy of Emotion and Its Expression." The lectures
were listed as follows:

I. The Mystery of Emotion
II. Gesture As a Language

III. The Philosophy of Laughter

IV. The Mystic Law of Beauty

V. The Marvels of the Human Face and Hand
VI. Nature's Art
VII. Masks and Faces of Society
VIII. The Emotional Significance of the Serpent
IX. The Philosophy of Love 32

For several months MacKaye appeared before audiences in many cities
from Maine to Pennsylvania. Later in the winter he also seems to have
lectured in the Middle West.33

In the spring of 1877, MacKaye established a school of expression at
23 Union Square, New York City.34 Beginning on January 10 of the
same year, he delivered a series of lectures on the Delsarte system at
the studio of Mrs. George Hall, 33 East 17th Street, New York City.35
Presumably Mrs. Hall was a teacher of elocution. The lectures were
given at four o'clock in the afternoon. Some twenty-three of these lec-
tures have been preserved in manuscript. There were at least thirty-four
lectures delivered, as the last preserved manuscript is numbered thirty-
four, although by its nature it seems not to be a concluding or final
lecture. These lectures bear such titles as: "Philosophy—Aim of Artist,
Nature of Perception/' etc.; ''The Trinities— Love, Wisdom and Power";

STEELE MACKAYE 209

"Feet—Primary Expressions and Attitudes," etc. The manuscripts give
a reasonably clear picture of MacKaye's interpretation of the Delsarte
system and of his teaching of it.

In 1878 MacKaye presented a series of twelve lectures on the Philoso-
phy of Expression in the Boston School of Oratory of Boston University
of which Lewis B. Monroe was the founder and Dean. The lectures
were attended by the entire school. This series seems to have been the
most important of all MacKaye's lectures for they seem to have in-
fluenced directly the teaching of elocution or expression. Among the
students in attendance were S. S. Curry and Franklin H. Sargent, the
founder of the American Academy of Dramatic Arts. Many years later
Sargent wrote:

... I took rapid notes, filling my notebook, and when, at the close, Steele
MacKaye left us, I found myself left alone in the hall, meditating on the pro-
fundity of his discourse, overflowing for me with revelations. As I walked in
the Dean's private office, I asked: Prof. Monroe, what is this? And I shall
never forget the patriarchal old man, with his white hair, and glowing face,
as he looked up at me and said, My boy, this is the key to the universe! 3G

Echoes of these lectures appear in many articles in Werners Magazine.
The lectures probably did more to set the pattern of Delsartism than
any of MacKaye's other writings and addresses.

During the following years MacKaye continued to instruct private
pupils and to make an occasional lecture tour. On several occasions he
attempted to found a school similar to the "Cours D'Esthetique Appli-
quee," but his efforts came to naught as other interests drew him away.
He also planned to write a number of volumes on the Delsarte system,3 r
but aside from several articles in Werners Magazine 3S nothing was
written, or at least published. His death occurred February 25, 1894. 39

In America the Delsarte system became primarily a system of physi-
cal training. An editorial in Werners Voice Magazine in December,
1892, commented: "We are the first to present in a concise and compre-
hensive manner the practical workings, as well as the theoretical
principles, of the various systems of physical culture, including the Del-
sarte, the Swedish, the German, the Eclectic, etc." 40 The central ele-
ment of the Delsarte training lay in "harmonic gymnastics," a series of
exercises of which relaxing or "decomposing" exercises seemed to be the
most important. It seems difficult to determine whether these exercises
were a part of the system as taught by Delsarte or whether they were
added wholly or in part by MacKaye. In an early lecture MacKaye
credited Delsarte with a system of exercises:

Delsarte has an adequate background for the basis of his system. His long
study enables him to extend to the student of art three gifts, "(1) a simple but
philosophical and effective method for the treatment and study of Ms sub-

210 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION., AND SPEECH

ject, (2) a profound knowledge of the aesthetics, elements and principles of
his art, and (3) a system of significant exercises which will develop to the
utmost his executive power and give him the greatest command of his instru-
ment." 41

Later, however, MacKaye claimed credit for the development of the
exercises and insisted that they were not a part of the system as taught
by Delsarte. Writing in Werner's Voice Magazine for July, 1892, Mrs.
Steele MacKaye said; "The whole system of aesthetic or harmonic gym-
nastics is, from the first word to the last, entirely of Mr. MacKaye's
invention/' She continued:
... In his first lectures, Mr. MacKaye never dreamed of separately cataloguing

his own discoveries or inventions Such of Mr. MacKaye's discoveries as he

was able to show Delsarte were glady accepted by him, as supplementing and
developing the practical side of his own work. As they had thus become a
recognized portion of the methods of the new science Mr, MacKaye was so
eager to introduce ... he made no attempt to separate his own contributions
from the body of Delsarte's work.

But Mr. MacKaye has now been working and studying for 20 years, and dur-
ing that time he has been constantly developing the Science and the Philos-
ophy of Expression; at the same time building up and perfecting that system
of psycho-physical training which to-day, under the name of Aesthetic or
Harmonic Gymnastics, forms so large a portion of the practical training of
the "Delsarte System," as it is taught in classes and in schools, and set forth
in the various textbooks now published on the subject. . . .42

In his claim to have originated "harmonic gymnastics" MacKaye was
supported by Mme. Geraldy, Delsarte s daughter. "My father taught
expression/' she said, ". . . he did not teach gymnastics. I do not say
your relaxing exercises and posings are not valuable, for I believe they
may be for certain purposes; but I do say that my father did not teach
them/' 4S In speaking of MacKaye she commented, "But he, like every-
body else, has not been content to leave Delsarte's work as the master
left it, but has added material of his own devising." 44

On the otber hand, Rev. W. R. Alger stated that Delsarte taught
aesthetic gymnastics as part of his system. Alger himself studied with
Gustave Delsarte during the year following ^he death of the elder
Delsarte. Alger wrote later:

I had the privilege of studying with him [Gustave] for a season. Afterwards
Mrs. Henrietta Russell studied with him for a year or more. We both found
that he taught, as imparted to him by his father, the same system of expres-
sion, the same laws and rules, the same gymnastic training, given at a subse-
quent date by Mr. MacKaye to his pupils, and still later, published by Miss
Stebbins in her books.45

Later in the same article Alger commented, "Steele MacKaye no doubt
has corrected some errors in it, developed some portions of it further,

STEELE MAC KAYE 211

made some additions to it, and improved the name by changing it from
'aesthetic' to 'harmonic/ " Alger gave a brief description of these exer-
cises in his Life of Edwin Forrest. 4Q

The weight of evidence, however, would seem to support MacKaye
in his claims for inventing harmonic gymnastics. MacKaye accepted the
trinitary concept of Delsarte, and, in general, the whole speculative
philosophy, but being less profoundly religious than Delsarte, or at
least not Catholic in religion, he was probably less interested in the
philosophical implications than in the practical aspects. Thus MacKaye
seems to be responsible for the emphasis on gesture in the Delsarte sys-
tem as taught in America, although Delsarte System of Oratory, dis-
cussed later in this paper, also contributed heavily to that end. In any
event, MacKaye's failure to make a clear and unambiguous statement
about the system and his own contributions to it contributed to the
conversion of the system into a method of physical culture.

Delsarte had been interested primarily in the training of singers. Mac-
Kaye was interested in the training of actors. Only in the hands of
pupils of MacKaye and of pupils of his pupils was the system applied
to "expression" or interpretation.

The part Mr. Steele MacKaye has taken in developing and popularizing the
Delsarte system is too well known to need any explanation or defense. He,
the late Prof. Lewis B. Monroe, and the Reverend William R. Alger were the
great American trio to whom the expressional arts owe an immense debt of
gratitude. They are the founders of the "new elocution," and were in the
most intimate professional and personal relations with Delsarte.47

So wrote Edgar S. Werner in March of 1892. Of this trio, only Monroe
was, by profession, a teacher. As a young man Monroe had suffered
from poor health and had become interested in physical training. From
this his interest had spread to vocal training.48 He was one of the
founders of the School of Oratory of Boston University, of which he
later became Dean. Among his pupils here were Charles Wesley Emer-
son, founder of the Emerson College of Oratory,49 S. S. Curry, founder
of the School of Expression of Boston,50 Franklin Sargeant, long the
director of the American Academy of Dramatic Arts, and many other
prominent leaders in the elocution movement. Alexander Graham Bell
was a teacher in this school under Monroe's sponsorship.51

Monroe published a book, Vocal and Physical Training.52 In it he
stated his indebtedness to Rush and to the adaptation of Rush's work
by Russell. However, the book also advocated a system of vocal and
physical exercises to be taught in the public schools that would train

212 RHETOBIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

the mind, body, and soul and presented a system modeled after the
Gymnase Triat of Paris.5 3

MacKaye's lectures in 1877 had markedly influenced Monroe, but his
early death, in July, 1879, at the age of fifty-four, deprived the elocu-
tion movement of a leader who might well have prevented some of the
confusion that was associated with Delsarte's name.54

Rev. William Rounseville Alger is an entirely different case. As a
popular Unitarian minister of Boston, Alger was drawn to Delsartism
by the basic Christian philosophy of the system, although how a Uni-
tarian minister was able to reconcile his own faith with a philosophical
system so obviously Roman Catholic in its inception is difficult to see.
Evidently Alger espoused only those elements of the system that would
accord with his own religious philosophy. Fred Winslow Adams, writ-
ing in Werners Magazine, says of Alger, "He speaks of Delsarte's
aesthetic gymnastics as 'the basis of a new religious education, destined
to perfect the children of men, abolish deformity, sickness, and crime,
and redeem the earth!'" 55

James R. Alger was born in 1823. As a boy he worked on a farm and
at other occupations chiefly in Boston. He entered Pembroke Academy
at Pembroke, New Hampshire, and at the age of twenty entered the
theological school at Harvard University from which he was graduated
in 1847. Upon graduation he became the pastor of Mt. Pleasant Church,
Roxbury, where he remained for seven years. He then became pastor
of the Bulfmch Street Church, where he remained for ten years. Be-
cause of poor health he took a trip abroad in 1865, and on his return he
was offered the pastorate of the Music Hall society. He preached there
from 1868 until 1872. In 1868 also he was made chaplain of the Massa-
chusetts House of Representatives.56 During these years, Alger had
written and published a number of books. They were chiefly religious
and philosophical pamphlets, but many of tibem had proved popular.
At the time he appears in the Delsarte story, he was engaged in writing
his Life of Edwin Forrest, published in 1877.

Both Monroe and Alger had become interested in Delsarte in a rather
roundabout way. The two were good friends. Alger was under contract
to James Oakes, publisher, and friend of Forrest. Oakes received a
letter from the French correspondent, Francis Durivage, full of enthu-
siastic praise of Steele MacKaye and of Delsarte and his philosophy.
Monroe and Alger were so impressed with the letters of Durivage that,
when MacKaye returned to America, they made a special trip to New
York to see him. They were even more impressed with him and his
teaching than they had expected to be from Durivage's letters. Both
became enthusiastic followers and pupils and helped to stimulate inter-
est in MacKaye's first lectures. Alger, after a short period of study with

STEELE MACKAYE 213

MacKaye, went to Europe with the intention of studying with Delsarte
himself, a study prevented by the death of Delsarte. Madame Delsarte,
however, wrote to Alger in Vienna, telling of her husband's death, and
adding, "But when you arrive in Paris, our oldest son, Gustave, who
inherits much of his father's genius and all of his traditions, will be
quite at your service/'57 Alger accepted this offer and studied with
Gustave Delsarte the better part of a year, and, presumably, from his
studies with MacKaye and the younger Delsarte, acquired a good
understanding of the Delsarte philosophy.

After his return from Paris for some years Alger continued to preach
and, evidently, teach the Delsarte system. He lectured at various times
on the basic philosophy of the system. In the final years of the nine-
teenth century he lectured at Curry's School of Expression on a number
of occasions. On February 9, 1897, he spoke on the "Nature, Meaning,
and Laws of Rhythm in Experience and Expression," and on February
16, he was scheduled to lecture on "Eighteen Forms of Emphasis." In
the December, 1898, issue of Expression Magazine, Curry wrote:

Rev. William R. Alger has been giving a course of six lectures to the
School of Expression on the "Drama of the Human Face." As the result of
years of investigation, he has information and quotations gathered from wide
and varied sources. He gave most profound and philosophical definitions and
discriminations of the leading phases of the subject. Some of his definitions
were most important. He carefully distinguished a mask from a face, and the
expression of the face from grimacery. Among the most forcible parts of the
lectures were the illustrations of various kinds of the faces which Mr. Alger
has noted in his experience.58

Among the special courses listed in the School of Expression in the
autumn issue of the Expression Magazine for 1899, course No. 6 was
listed as follows:

VI. Rev. William R. Alger, the distinguished student and scholar, will
give four courses in the afternoon lectures upon,

1. The Philosophy of Human Nature in the Acquisition of Experience and
the Command of Expression.

2. The Ideal of Personal Perfection and the Method and the Principles of
the Physical, Ethical and Aesthetic Training for Its Realization.

3. The Varieties of Human Character in All Its Types, Critically Studied,
Defined, Analyzed, and Illustrated.

4. The Historic and Artistic Evolution of the Human Voice Considered in
Its Successive Stages, Its Mysteries, Its Social Offices, and Its Ideal Perfec-
tion.59

And, in the Winter 1899-1900 issue of the same magazine, Alger's name
appeared three times on a list of lectures and recitals:

Oct. 26 A lecture on "The Work of Life and Its Motives." Rev. William

R. Alger.

214 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Nov 11 A lecture on "The Seven Fine Arts." Rev. William R. Alger.

Nov. 2, 9, 16, 28, Dec. 5, 12, 19. ... Lectures on "The Philosophy of Hu-
man Nature in the Acquisition of Experience and the Command of Expres-
sion," Rev. William R. Alger.60

Some fifteen manuscripts of these lectures are still available and have
been the subject of a special study.61 The lectures indicate that Alger
had accepted the trinitary concept as originally stated by Delsarte and
the mechanical aspects arising from it, but there is a strong religious
strain running through all his work. Price commented in her study of
Alger:

The basic idea running through these lectures is that all heaven and earth,
and all that is in them can be divided into the trinity, based upon the Holy
Trinity of God, the Father; Jesus Christ, the Son; and the Holy Ghost. In
man, created in die image and likeness of God, the trinity is manifest as life,
mind, and soul, or the vital, mental and moral realms

Because man is created in the image and likeness of God, it should be his
duty to develop his powers to the highest degree possible. He should always
strive for perfection. It is possible for man to attain personal perfection if he
has the will power to follow a rigorous and self -disciplinary training

Gaining control of his muscles and body is the first step in the realization
of the ideal for the artist. His system of physical culture must be based upon
aesthetic principles. They must combine mental, bodily, and emotional
unity.62

Thus, after MacKaye's other interests had drawn him away from any
serious advocacy of the Delsarte system, and even after MacKaye's
death, Alger carried on the ideas and practices of the Delsarte system.
He was the last important advocate of the system as he had been one of
the earlier. He died February 7, 1905.

The first and by far the most important of the many books dealing
with the system was Delsarte System of Oratory, published by Edgar
S. Werner. The book, essentially, was a translation of notes of French
pupils of Delsarte. The book went through four editions, each edition
presenting additional material.

L'Abbe Delaumosne, a French priest who had studied with Delsarte,
published, in 1874, the notes of his studies.63 The little book was en-
titled Pratique de UArt Oratoire de Delsarte. It was translated by
Frances A. Shaw and printed in 1882, under the title The Art of Om-
tory, System of Delsarte ** S. S. Curry said of this book:

After his death [Delsarte's], a priest, who had studied with Delsarte, pub-
lished without any authority whatever, the notes he had taken of his lessons.
The little book was published in Paris for fifty cents, but even at this price,

STEELE MACKAYE 215

the small first edition was not sold, a poor translation, however, by one who
knew nothing of Delsarte, was published in America, and sold at two dollars
a volume, greatly to the financial gain of the publisher. The book was uni-
versally condemned by everyone who knew anything of Delsarte, both in
France and in this country. It was crude, and mis-represented his method.65

A comparison of the French original and the translation, however, shows
that the translation was a satisfactory one and that Curry's criticism is
not entirely justified. That the book misrepresented the Delsarte sys-
tem may be more nearly true. I/ Abbe Delaumosne evidently attended
a cours planned for clergymen, or, at any rate, he took notes only on
those aspects of the system that applied to oratory. There is no men-
tion of music and little reference to acting. The preface opens with
these words:

Orators, you are called to the ministry of speech. You have fixed your
choice upon the pulpit, the bar, the tribune or the stage. You will become one
day, preacher, advocate, lecturer or actor; in short, you desire to embrace the
orator's career.66

The book is divided into three parts: Part I, covering thirty-five pages
in the translation, deals with voice; Part II, containing eighty pages,
treats"*oTgestiire; Part III, with thirty-three pages, discusses articulate
lan^iiage.^The emphasis on gesture is obvious. The book contains such
stanoSrd items from the Delsarte system as the medallion of inflection,
the nine basic attitudes of the legs [illustrated], the zones of gesture,
etc. The material was undoubtedly gleaned from Delsarte's lectures and
attempts by American Delsartians to discredit it in favor of their own
theories and procedures must be discounted. This volume became the
first edition of Delsarte System of Oratory.

The second edition of this work, published in 1884, added to the
Delaumosne notes a translation of notes of another French pupil of
Delsarte. In 1882, Angelique Arnaud, a minor French writer of senti-
mental novels, published in Paris a volume simply entitled Frangois
Delsarte.67 The book was in two parts. The first part presented a brief
biography while the second part discussed the philosophical basis of
the system. It was this second part, along with "The Attributes of Rea-
son," an essay by Delsarte himself, that was added to the original Delau-
mosne notes and published under the title of Delsarte System of
Oratory. Arnaud's material is discursive and rambling, lacking the
mechanical positiveness of the Delaumosne notes, but it does supple-
ment heavily the philosophical treatment. This second edition was pub-
lished in 1884. A third edition appeared in 1887 which added the bio-
graphical section of Arnaud's book and a section called "Literary
Remains of Frangois Delsarte," a translation of material purportedly

216 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

purchased from Madame Delsarte. This material, as well as the Arnaud
book, was translated by Abby L. Alger, daughter of Rev. Alger. The
fourth edition, published in 1892, added "The Lecture and Lessons
Given by Mme. Marie Geraldy [Delsarte's Daughter] in America," and
some miscellaneous items.

In the absence of any published material from MacKaye's pen, this
book remained the best statement of Delsartism and it had consider-
able authority. Undoubtedly it did more than any other to fix the zones
of gesture and other mechanical details of the system in the minds of
American teachers.

There were many other books on the Delsarte system, of course. Such
books as Genevieve Stebbins' Delsarte System of Dramatic Expression
and her Society Gymnastics, Anna Morgan's An Hour With Delsarte,
Emily Bishop's Self Expression and Health: Americanized Delsarte
Culture, and Moses True Brown's The Synthetic Philosophy of Expres-
sion were widely used and sold.

The system finally became a routine mechanical system for the teach-
ing of the expression of emotion largely through gesture and body posi-
tion, accompanied by statue posing, tableaux, etc. By 1900 the system
was largely outmoded. It is now only of academic interest. Cl^artism
had its value, however, in the interest and activity stimulated in trie
whole field of speech, and out of the vitriolic arguments as to the mean-
ing, interpretation and use of the system, there tended to develop a
real interest in speech which has contributed, in some measure, to a
better understanding of speech training everywhere.

Notes

1. Werner's Magazine was founded in January, 1879, under the name The
Voice by Edgar S. Werner. In January, 1889, the name was changed to Werner's
Voice Magazine, and in January, 1893, the word voice was dropped and the journal
became Werners Magazine In general reference in this article the journal is called
Werner's Magazine; in specific citation the name at the time is used.

2. Charles Bickford, "The Delsarte Delusion," The Voice, X (November, 1888),
177.

3. L. P., "Letter Box," The Voice, VI, No. 1 (January, 1884), 16.

4. Elsie M. Wilbor, "Chautauqua," Werner's Voice Magazine, XII (August,
1890), 195.

5. S. S. Curry, The Province of Expression (Boston, 1891), p. 337.

6. J. Weber, Le Temps, August 1, 1871.

7. Francis Durivage, "Delsarte," The Atlantic Monthly, XXVII (May, 1871),
615.

8. Le Soir, July 26, 1871.

9. George A. Neely, "The School of Delsarte: Based on An Original Notebook/7
unpublished M.A, thesis, Louisiana State, 1942.

10. W. Warner, "Publications Musicales," L'ficlair, August 28, 1839.

11. Escudier, "Chefs d'Oeuvre Lyrigues des Anciens Maitres," La France Musi-
cole, February 4, 1855.

STEELE MACKAYE 217

12. Jules Janm, "La Semaine Dramatique," Journal des Debats, August 8, 1853.

13. C. L. Shaver, "The Delsarte System of Expression as Seen Through the
Notes of Steele MacKaye," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wisconsin, 1937. See
also: Novalyne Price, "The Delsarte Philosophy of Expression as Seen Through
Certain Manuscripts of the Rev. William R. Alger," unpublished M.A. thesis,
Louisiana State, 1941, Virginia Morris, "The Influence of Delsarte in America as
Revealed Through the Lectures of Steele MacKaye/* unpublished M.A. thesis,
Louisiana State, 1941, Edwin Levy, "Delsarte's 'Cours D'Esthetique AppliqueV,
Based on an Original Notebook," unpublished M.A. thesis, Louisiana State, 1940,
Neely, op. cit.; Myra White Harang, "The Public Career of Frangois Delsarte,"
unpublished M.A. thesis, Louisiana State, 1945, Rayda Wallace Dillport, "The
Pupils of Delsarte," unpublished M.A. thesis, Louisiana State, 1946.

14. Shaver, "Delsarte System," p. 41. The reader may wonder if there is any con-
nection between Delsarte and Swedenborg. There may be, but there is no evidence
of such connection. Swedenborg's name does not appear in any material relating
to Delsarte. Delsarte's theories seem rather to arise from Catholic doctrine than
from the philosophy of Swedenborg

15. Curry, Province of Expression, p. 344.

16. The title page of Alphonse Paget's notebook states, ". . . Exposition in Nine
Lessons on Art, Oratory, Painting and Music." Cf. Levy, "Delsarte's Cours D'Esthe-
tique Appliquee." Charles Boissiere, in two separate articles in La Reforme Musicale
( May 23, 1858 and July 11, 1858) indicates that the course consisted of ten lessons.

17. Delsarte System of Oratory, 206.

18. Percy MacKaye, Epoch: The Life of Steele MacKaye, 2 vols. (New Yoik,
1927), I, 133-136. For a similar description of Delsarte's "Cours," see A. Giraudet's
letter to the editor, The Voice, VII (January, 1885), 9-10.

19. Dillport, Pupils of Delsarte.

20. One of MacKaye's sisters studied singing with Delsarte See MacKaye,
Epoch, I, 134.

21. Epoch, I, 37.

22. Epoch, I, 135.

23. Epoch, I, 135-136.

24. Epoch, I, 134-135. It should be noted that Delsarte had several children,
two of whom followed in his footsteps. His daughter, Marie, later Madame Geraldy,
visited America in 1892 where she lectured and taught briefly. His son Gustave
taught the system after his father's death until his own death in 1879.

25. Epoch, I, 141-142.

26. Epoch, I, 142.

27. Epoch, I, 150-151.

28. Epoch, I, 154.

29. Epoch, Appendix xli.

30. Le Salut Public, July 23, 1871.

31. Epoch, I, 228-232.

32. From a Redpath circular quoted in Epoch, I, 231.

33. Epoch, I, 263.

34. Epoch, I, 266-267.

35. Morris, Influence of Delsarte, p. 26.

36. Epoch, I, 190.

37. Epoch, II, 267.

38. "Francois Delsarte*' (August, 1889), p. 149; "Expression in Nature and Ex-
pression in Art," a series of four articles, April, May, June, August, 1887.

39. Epoch, II, 460.

40. Werners Voice Magazine, XIV (December, 1892), 373.

41. Morris, Influence of Delsarte, pp. 44-45.

42. Mrs. Steele MacKaye, "Steele MacKaye and Franc, ois Delsarte," Werner's
Voice Magazine, XIV (July, 1892), 187 passim. This article was written some two
years before MacKaye's death and he must have known and approved of its state-

218 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

ments. See Epoch, II, 270. Interestingly enough, a footnote on page 271 states
that Rev. Alger approved of the article.

43. E. Miriam Coyriere, "Mme. Geraldy's Visit to America/* Werner's Voice
Magazine, XIV (April, 1892), 103.

44. Ibid.

45. W. R. Alger, "The Aesthetic 'Gymnastics' of Delsarte," Werners Magazine,
XVI (January, 1894), 4.

46. William R. Alger, Life of Edwin Forrest, 2 vols. (Philadelphia, 1877), II,
659-662.

47. Werners Voice Magazine, XIV (March, 1892), 59.

48. Werners Voice Magazine, XI (September, 1889), 169.

49. Price, Alger, 2.

50. S. S. Curry, "Professor Lewis B. Monroe, Some Characteristics of His Teach-
ing," Expression Magazine, I ( December, 1896), 243.

51. Epoch, I, 152.

52. (Philadelphia, 1869).

53. Ibid., 7.

54. Werners Voice Magazine, XI (September, 1889), 170.

55. "William Rounseville Alger," Werners Magazine, XV (March, 1893), 87.

56. This summary is taken from Alger's obituary notice in the Boston Transcript,
February 8, 1905.

57. Alger, "The Aesthetic 'Gymnastics* of Delsarte," Werner's Magazine, XVI
(January, 1894), 3.

58. V, 216.

59. V, 371.

60. Appendix, 9.

61. Price, Alger.

62. Ibid., 119-122.

63. M. L'Abbe Delaumosne, Pratique de VArt Oratoire de Delsarte (Paris,
1874).

64. The Art of Oratory, System of Delsarte, tr. Frances A. Shaw (Albany, N. Y.,
1882).

65. Curry, Province of Expression, 335.

66. Shaw, Art of Oratory, preface.

67. Angeh'que Arnaud, Francois Delsarte, ses Decouvertes en Esthetique, sa
Science, sa Methode (Paris, 1882).

JLU Dr. James Rush

LESTER L. HALE

In examining or utilizing Dr. James Rush's contribution to speech
education, not only must the most familiar product of his investigation,
The Philosophy of the Human Voice,1 be scrutinized, but its frame of
reference should be appreciated. While Dr. Rush presented a detailed
analysis of human vocal expression which since his day has set the
stage for much that has been superficial in the teaching of speech, his
own work was not superficial; it was based to a considerable extent on
philosophical and scientific inquiry. In aiming his chief research to-
wards a sound and satisfactory explanation of human function and
physiology, he was led into a byway which captivated his attention and
led him to elaborate investigation jofjhg morejtangible evidence of
flie humanm voice. Thk

to^the field of speech Americaj^first comprehensive organization of
vocalprinciples._The scope of the PhffosopT^^ and

detailed than any single volume written on the subject prior to its first
publication in 1827. The thoroughness of the book, its apparent and
immediate usefulness to teachers, made Rush a recognized authority
in the discipline of elocution. Unfortunately, superficial applications of
his systematic description of expressive phenomena were drawn from
his book. They bred many abridgements and abuses of his basic philo-
sophical and physiological approach, obscuring and distorting his more
significant and profound purpose. Consequently, appraisal of Rush's
contribution to speech education is often colored by prejudice and pre-
supposition. One's bias against any modern mechanistic technique
which seems to resemble Rush's vocal analysis, however, must be iso-
lated and properly evaluated before the Philadelphian can receive his
due.

ThePhilosophy as,a work on speech is Rush'^ffempt to apply medi-
cal scienceTffstt w» known to him, to the analysis of human behavior
and the processes of neurological control. In Rush, medical science and
speecR come together.

219

220 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

The political freedom established by our nation's great leaders in
1776 was only one aspect of the emancipation of the American people.
Perhaps one of the most vital influences in stimulating fresh points of
view and unprejudiced thought came from the pen of Dr. Benjamin
Rush, James Rush's father. Physician-general in the Continental Army
under George Washington, signer of the Declaration of Independence
and one of the most public-spirited men of the time, Dr. Benjamin Rush
wrote voluminously and carefully on almost every subject which he
wished to revolutionize. He wrote so defiantly and honestly that in
later years it became politically hazardous for his son Richard Rush to
permit the publication of his father's autobiography.2

Of such a father and in such a time was James Rush born on March
15, 1786. His mother, Julia Stockton, was the daughter of Richard
Stockton, also a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He not only
inherited the energies and purpose of the pioneer, but his father care-
fully schooled him in the discipline of observation and scientific inquiry.
He attended the College of New Jersey (Princeton), receiving his
degree in 1805. By 1809 he had secured the M. D. degree from the Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania. His father then financed his travel abroad and
his study in Edinburgh. Throughout the years of his formal education,
father and son exchanged many letters— letters which vouch for the
personality and promise of the young physician whose professional life
was to follow in the shadow of his father's waning popularity. When he
graduated from the University of Pennsylvania his dissertation reflected
the qualities of mind which his father had inculcated. This and other
early efforts brought the approval of many.3

Dr. James Rush was honored by membership in many honorary socie-
ties, including the Institute de France, Academic Royale de Sciences,
Peithessophian Society of Rutgers College, American Philosophical
Society of Philadelphia, Rush Medical Society of Willoughby Univer-
sity, Peithessophian Society of Theological Seminary of New Bruns-
wick. The hopes of a father for a son were being fulfilled in the achieve-
ments of James, the physician.

While leading his contemporaries in the revolt of ideas, Dr. Benjamin
Rush wrote on many subjects, Among these was that of the mind and
its diseases, an interest which the son, James, soon acquired. Goodman
has identified Benjamin Rush as America's first psychiatrist, and the
publication of his Medical Inquiries and Observations upon the Disease
of the Mind was until 1883 the only comprehensive American treatise
on the subject4 Before considering the diseases of the mind, he first
described what he believed to be its faculties and operations:

DR. JAMES RUSH 221

Its faculties are: understanding, memory, imagination, passions, the prin-
ciple of faith, will, the moral faculty, conscience, and the sense of Deity.

Its principle [sic] operations, after sensation, are perception, association,
judgment, reasoning and volition. All of its subordinate operations, which are
known by the names attention, reflection, contemplation, wit, consciousness
and the like are nothing but modifications of the five principle [sic] opera-
tions that have been mentioned.

The faculties of the mind have been called, very happily, internal senses.
They resemble the external senses in being innate, and depending wholly
upon bodily impressions to produce their specific operations. These impres-
sions are made through the medium of the external senses. As well might we
attempt to excite thought in a piece of marble by striking it with our hand,
as expect to produce a single operation of the mind in a person deprived of
the external senses of touch, seeing, hearing, taste, and smell.
. . . the mind is incapable of any operations independently of impressions
communicated to it through the medium of the body.5

While in Europe, Dr. James Rush became acquainted with the phi-
losophy of Dugald Stewart 6 and Lord Bacon, and became irritated by
the speculations of metaphysicians. Returning to America in 1811, he
lectured to his father's classes in medical school at the University of
Pennsylvania. The essence of his thinking at that time was that "reason-
ing is only a train of physical perception" and "that the mind in its out-
line consisted only of perception and memory." 7 He made notes on this
subject in his Commonplace Book of Medicine in 1818 under the title
"The Mind, Its Healthy Functions,9' 8 and planned a thorough analysis
of the mind based upon careful observations.

The approach of father .and so& to investigations of mental function
was to create considerable criticism of their own religious convictions.
Thij^wa^lhe, price- they were to pay for their new-found freedom of
thought. This had serious consequences in the life of James, whose
later endeavors were also to provoke misunderstanding and disapproval.
Benjamin Rush was a leader in the Presbyterian faith and his reform
effort was "as fundamentally religious as it was patriotic." 9 His stern
faith (which it is presumed he imparted to his children) led him in later
years to "part company with his Presbyterian teachers and associates"
because he found them "too good to do good." 10 His letters to James
often expressed hope that James would hold fast to his religious convic-
tion. But society could not believe that scientific study of the machinery
of human control would be compatible with faith in divine design.
When James Rush in his turn developed a segment of the history of
mind, religious indictment became intense and no doubt contributed
to his retirement. Public opinion to a great extent was admittedly re-
sponsible for deferring his investigation of mind.

Research into the mind was dominated by "the privileged order of
metaphysicians." ai Mind was said to be spirit and spirit was an entity

222 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

separated from matter and unyielding to human analysis. Accordingly,
Rush's analysis of mental functions was judged atheistic. Such condem-
nation apparently became widespread as years passed and may have
had some foundation in his general contempt for organized religious
practice. Into a small note pad he penned in 1835: "The literary world
have got to worship Shakespeare, and so forget to imitate his excellence,
just as the religions of the world adore God and omit to imitate his
truth and justice." 12 And in the Preface to Rhymes of Contrast on Wis-
dom and Folly in 1869 he wrote: "Our mind like the rest of physical
Creation is under the necessary Rule of God and Nature; let us not try
to thwart that Rule, by the metaphysical attempt to take their Law of
the intellect into our own fictional hand. Follow that Law and it will
keep us right, as it does the mind of the sub-animal world." 13

James Rush was attempting to open further the door of scientific in-
vestigation of mind, following the efforts of his father. He believed
firmly in the existence of an Almighty Power, or First Cause, and that
science merely aided us in understanding His instruments of life. Many
friends and relatives, however, feared for his soul's safety if he con-
tinued such materialistic reasoning. His cousin, Mary Rush, wrote
dramatically and at great length petitioning him to give up his studies.

. . . look away, I pray you, from the weak and sinful creatures who now
address you and remember only, that your own soul is at stake. . . .

I entreat you, by all that is sacred in heaven, and by all that you value
upon earth, by all that is manly and respectable and praiseworthy among
men, to abandon your present delusive and soul-destroying views of religion.14

Although Rush's studies were to take him towards renown, he was
never to know the comfort and respect of success which he sought in
his own days.

Shortly after he had begun his practice of medicine following his
return from Edinburgh, he married Phoebe Anne Ridgway (1819), an
heiress and a brilliant leader of Philadelphia society. The early years
of his marriage were apparently very happy, and his professional
achievements during this time were his best. He not only had begun his
investigations of mental function but attempted to prepare a medical
text which he called Novus Ordo Medicinae^ This was to have been a
compilation of medical case histories using not only a running account
but a chart system for recording symptoms. A bound workbook of
printed page-forms for this purpose is still among his manuscripts but
comparatively few pages were recorded. This work, begun in 1813 and
continued while he was conducting his successful medical practice, was
apparently laid aside as his enthusiasm for his study of mind increased.
He did not find another opportunity to return in earnest to it, for he

DR. JAMES RUSH 223

intensified his study of mind during the years 1818-1822, which in turn
led him, by 1823, into the field of creative communication.

This shift of interest so occupied his attention that his early notations
on mind were left unpublished until after The Philosophy of the Human
Voice had been in print through five revisions. However, in order to
comprehend better the relationship between his vocal analysis and his
description of mental process it is desirable first to follow his reasoning
through to its eventual goal, The Natural History of the Intellect, which
appeared in 1865. With appreciation for his avowed and original pur-
pose of analyzing mental function, and an understanding of the prod-
uct of this endeavor, we shall more readily recognize his vocal philoso-
phy as the by-product of his medical research,

In addition to his conviction that mind consisted only of perception
and ine'mory, which Dr. Rush had arrived at prior to 1818, he had the
growing belief that the manner in which mind was capable of expres-
siorrwas a part of mental function itself. He then began a careful ex-
perimental observation of vocal expression to discover the relationship
between it and its apparent complement— perception.

Thus began a hybrid process of reasoning and experimentation which
made the investigations of Rush an interesting cross between the arm-
chair psychology of his contemporaries and the experimental psy-
chology which followed almost fifty years later. It should be remem-
bered that his 1818 recorded notations were contemporary with BesseFs
report of the Greenwich observatory incident which called attention to
individual differences and ushered in a new era in psychology. Thus, his
primary postulates on mind and voice become historically significant
in relation to experimental psychology as well as to speech.

Rush^firgtJS^ipr postulate, which evolved during the half century
in which he studied the functioning of mind, was that mind should be
regarded ^^physiological function as orderly as sensation itself and
as tanpSe a$, muscle movement His two volumes on the subject of
human intellect which finally emerged are too involved and cumber-
some to be reported upon in detail, but it can be seen that he started
from a premise of physiologic reality:

All that man perceives, thinks, pronounces, and performs is respectively
through his senses, his brain and his muscles. From these physical and direc-
tive agencies proceed his science and his art; and from their proper or im-
proper use severally arise his good and his evil, his error and his truth.16

He finally saw function of mind as consisting of five "constituents,"
rather than three:

224 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

. . . First. Primary perceptions of things before the senses. Second. Memorial
perceptions after their removal. Third, Joint perceptions; by which primary
are compared with primary, or memorial with memorials which are called
unmixed; and mixed, when these two different forms are compared with each
other. Fourth. Conclusive perceptions, or those by which we come finally to
a knowledge of the relationships of two or more of the primary and memorial
to each other; from their agreement or identity to classify the things of nature;
affirm their laws; and apply them to the purpose of science, of art, and of our
physical, moral and intellectual selves. Fifth. Verbal perceptions, or vocal and
written signs of all the other four different forms; without which allotted and
manageable signs; or in common phrase, without language of sound, or
of symbol, for thought and passion; the human mind would be as limited
as that of the brute.17

What Rush was saying meant simply that the complicated and mys-
terious functioning of mind was really an orderly sequence of sensation,
memory, association, conclusive perception, and muscular and verbal
performance responses:

All of its [mind's] intellectual functions and products, whether of thought,
or passion, properly so distinguished; or of passion carried into nervous, mus-
cular, or vocal action, are the effects, the whole effects, and nothing but the
effects of these.18

His effort as a physician-scientist to understand mind as a physiological
phenomenon— a function of tangible matter and human material— was
one of the first attempts at modern classifications in psychology.
His second contention was that thought and speech are inseparable:

The mind as we only can know it; is an indivisible compound of Thought
and Speech or other sign. Which first begins, if they are not co-eval, is a point
for Metaphysicians. . . .

To describe the mind, therefore, it is necessary to show the inseparable
connection between thought and the voice; with their influences on each
other: for they cannot, separately, be fully known.19

In pointing out the interdependence of thought and speech, and in
demonstrating the functions of mind to be physiological phenomena,
the third basic postulate becomes evident: that speech is a total mental
and physical response. Although he stops the moving wheel to count its
spokes, he remains constantly aware of man's dynamic nature, his inte-
gration, his existence as a unit, and his whole personality. "Wisdom,
folly, virtue, and vice, with all their forms and effects are enacted by
the mind," 20 he says, and what a person is, and what he will be, is
determined by the cultivated use of sensation, memory, association, "and
the verbal resultant Mental processes, then, are one and the same with
physical sensation and expression; and speech cannot be isolated or
disassociated from the physical being, or whole personality, for it is

DR. JAMES RUSH 225

actually the fifth constituent of the mind itself. The Natural History of
the Intellect attempts not only to develop these primary tenets, but to
describe the manner in which behavior can be recognized and predicted
in many of life's situations.

Although his final work on mind bears a strong resemblance to cur-
rently known neurological explanations of brain activity, his volumes
on the subject were too late to be significant in the rapidly expanding
scientific approaches to the subject. Furthermore, his final digest of the
matter became so distorted by disappointments of his life and packed
with the prejudice and disillusionment of a man "out of joint with his
time/' 21 that his volumes on the intellect were disregarded by scholars
and served only to accent his final failure as a scientific figure.

It is not difficult today to understand how reasonable was Rush's
transition from an analysis of mind to that of voice. As he observed the
function of mind he became convinced he "should require further
knowledge of the various departments of nature, "science, art, and life"
to enable him to "encompass the detail embraced by [my] practical
system of Perceptions/3 22 Furthermore, he did not wish to become
involved in further argument concerning the question of the mind's
"material, or spiritual, or any mystical or metaphysical causation." 23
He reasoned that for one successfully to submit to the public a view as
controversial as his, he would first need to develop a reputation for
profound thinking through more popular publications. He began to
study mathematics, natural philosophy, history, metaphysics, philology,
military science, and the aesthetic arts. This last interest awakened in
him his early flair for rhyming and he began occasionally to write in
"the brief-sententious manner of early English Dramatists." 24 He rea-
soned that neither a textbook in medicine nor a professional disserta-
tion on mind would be accepted by the hostile public until he had
received acclaim in other ways. No doubt this decision led him first
to complete the Philosophy.

Along the way he was drawn to a study of Smith's Harmonics 2S and
was impressed by the "distinction perceived by the Greeks, between the
continuous or sliding movement of the voice, in speech, and its dis-
crete or skipping transition, by the steps of the musical scale." He
sought to satisfy his curiosity concerning the variations of voice "by a
strict, physical, and Baconian investigation of its phenomena, particu-
larly as they might be connected with the working plan of the mind." 2Q
In 1823 he recorded some notes called "Remarks on the Human Voice
in Reading." This marked the beginning of a more concentrated and
systematic effort to study the voice.

He tried to free himself from the bondage of existing falsity and con-
fusion in this field and to make his own first-hand observations of

226 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

speech. In 1826 this work was accomplished, and he published in
1827 the first edition of The Philosophy of the Human Voice.

Ill

Having explained how Dr. Rush came to write on speech and voice
and what major premises formed the foundation of his various writings,
we are now in position to examine the original contributions he made
specifically in the field of speech. But before doing so, it would be well
first to look at the basic premise upon which his descriptive analysis of
the speech process hinged. In writing The Philosophy of the Human
Voice, Rush endeavored to furnish "physiological data to Rhetori-
cians." 27 It was not his concern to create a system of rules, but to
observe nature that he might give a physiological foundation to ex-
pressive art

The anatomy of the speech mechanism had already been described
by science, but the physiology or function of the mechanism had not
been detailed beyond discernment of the parts of the system that pro-
duced the sound. Rhetoricians, on the other hand, had noted the
elements of voice—force, pitch, quality, rhythm—but had not identified
them with the functions of anatomy. In publishing a vocal philosophy
which gave a physiological foundation and explanation to vocal theory,
Rush gave an entirely new and different emphasis to the study and
teaching of speech,28

It is true he gave application to his organized arrangement and
description of the vocal elements, which provided elocutionists easy
access to a "system," but his major contention was that the natural
phenomena of vocal expression were describable, and further, that only
from such a description could students be guided in making their own
analysis of nature.

He who has a knowledge of the constituents of speech, and of their powers
and uses, is the potential master of the science of Elocution; and he must
then derive from his ear, his sense of propriety, and his taste, the means of
actually applying it with success.29

He believed that an actor's or speaker's first obligation was to nature,
that to be natural in all expression wa& tlie prime prerequisite, but that
a student must have the cues to recognition of nature's unfoldment
which a study of the Philosophy should give him. Furthermore, when
the dictates of nature inspired a performer he must have at his com-
mand the skill of a voice potential which would serve his creative
instinct. That potential could be cultivated by routine and organized
exercise of the voice, unrelated to any specific performance effort.30

DK. JAMES RUSH 227

He reasoned that as a violinist must learn finger dexterity and tonal
control through exercise, so should a vocalist, speaker, or singer
achieve vocal capacity that would serve him satisfactorily in moments
of creative expression.

In the preparation of his own treatise, Rush was apparently keenly
aware of the work of many of the earlier writers. His personal
library contains many such volumes, most of which are replete with
his own marginal notations of occasional agreement and frequent vio-
lent disgust.31

We are now ready to consider the five major and original contribu-
tions of Rush to the teaching of speech. In the first place, he made a
bold gesture at clarifying speech nomenclature. Such confusion had
re§td±ed from earlier writers using terms so freely and interchangeably
that their concepts themselves were often obscured. Rush attempted
to give rhyme and reason to the terms currently being used. For
example, he drew together the "elements." He- dassified voic,e under
five general heads: quality, force, time, abruptness, and pitch.32

Discussion of pitch became more clarified under his terminology
because he used terms with parallel reference in music. Many con-
fusions such as existed between the meanings of quality and tone,
inflection and pitch, and among quantity, accent and force, were clari-
fied by his recorded nomenclature and because of the popularity of his
book they became accepted terms. No doubt the nomenclature de-
scribed and used in the Philosophy has been a great influence in devel-
oping the speech terminology in use today.

The second, and without doubt the most important original contribu-
tion, was his concept of a radical and vanishing movement in the
production^ of phonetic units. A greater part of his text is based upon
this concept. MucH of his work on pitch and stress appears to be more
original with him than it actually was because of his use of radical and
vanish to explain them. Radical is the beginning or root of each sound
unit from which the vanish can develop all manner of movement to
complete the unit. This vanishing movement has usually a fading effect,
although in some cases the radical fades into a stressed vanish. The
simplest illustration of radical and vanish is the diphthong or receding
glide. In vowel movements of the word day Rush refers to the [e] as
the radical and the [i] or [j] as the vanish. In the approaching glide [j]
as in the word yes, the radical is the [j] and the [E] the stressed vanish.
There is no definite division of movement into two parts; rather these
terms are "general reference to the two extremes of the movement." 33

He pointed out further that when the voice moves through the
radical and vanish in a smooth manner with no effort to prolong either
the attack or the release of the sound, the equable concrete movement

228 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

is formed. If the first part of the sound is prolonged and the vanish is
terminated rapidly, the protracted radical is created. Likewise, the pro-
tracted vanish occurs when the radical is slighted but greater stress
and duration is given the vanish.

Much can be explained by radical and vanish. Differences in stress
and loudness occur always between the radical and vanishing move-
ment. Between radical and vanish there must be a difference in pitch.
Song is distinguished from speech in that song is characteristically a
monotone. The pitch differences in song are of melodic nature, but a
word or syllable sung on a single melody note is a monotone. Rush
said there could be no such thing as a monotone in speech for there
must be a change in pitch sometime during the radical-vanishing move-
ment of each syllable. This can certainly be observed when a person
speaks in a so-called monotone, for the monotonous effect comes from a
predominant pitch or pitch pattern, while there are still present the
slight pitch changes during each radical-vanishing movement of a
syllable.

The third phase of his original work on voice was his explanation of
the phonetic elements, based upon the function of radical and, vanish.
He"nbt only reclassifled them to avoid the inconsistencies of spelling,
but also to observe the intonation of speech. He recognized thirty-five
phonetic elements which he divided into three groups: the tonics, sub-
tonics, and atonies. The tonics are capable of complete radical and
vanish movements (vowels, glides); the subtonics can embrace this
movement within themselves less perfectly, depending usually upon an
adjacent tonic for completion (voiced consonants); and the atonies are
incapable of employing the movement; but serve in the capacity of
imitators or terminators (unvoiced consonants). The tonics serve best
as vehicles of flexibility in intonation, the subtonics next best, and the
atonies are of least value in that respect. He also described the sounds
as to aspiration, abruptness, and other phonetic characteristics. His was
the clearest and most reasonable phonetic analysis of his day.

The fourth original contribution was his treq.toent^syUa^ication.
This again was based upon the radical and van^fiMgmovemerit A
syllable depends upon the completion of the radical and vanish. When
that movement has been terminated any new sound produced will of
necessity initiate another syllable. The presence of a final atonic means
that another syllable will of necessity be initiated if it is followed by a
subtonic or tonic which has the capacity to begin a new radical and
vanish movement. Two adjacent atonies prolong the syllable, but once
the vanish is completed by an atonic a new movement cannot be begun
without a second syllable resulting.
He showed further how varying effects of the syllables are created

DR. JAMES RUSH 229

by combining different phonetic elements in the creation of a complete
radical-vanish movement.

The first difference in the quality of a syllable is created by the
presence of the tonics alone. Rush said in this case that there is no
difference in the agreeableness of the sound, for the diphthongs are as
pleasant as pure vowels, even though the concrete rise of a diphthong
is composed of two different alphabetic elements.

The second type of syllable is one in which the tonic is initial and
is followed by one or two subtonics, as in [elm]. This forms an "easy
mingling of their constituents" and consequently a pleasant, blending
effect34

The third type is that in which a tonic is preceded and followed by
a subtonic as in [memz], [relm]. A continuant effect is created by this
combination also.

The fourth arrangement of elements is not so agreeable. Rush said,
for tonics, subtonics and atonies are combined. This presence of the
atonic prevents the equability of the concrete and consequently a less
smooth effect. An example of this composite type is in strength [stren,0].

A fifth arrangement is found in the second syllable of little, in which
no tonic is present. Such a combination lacks strength, Rush said.

Rush also had a word to say about the glide, which he did not call
by that name, but which he discussed in showing the "various degrees
in the smoothness of the syllabic impulse." 35 For instance, in the word
•flower he shows how two syllables are created if the w subtonic is
inserted between the two tonics. In other words, if the o is uttered as
distinct diphthong [cm], with the [u] as a protracted vanish movement,
a complete radical and vanish results and a full syllable is formed,
Thus when the [3] is sounded a new radical is begun and a second
syllable ensues.

Rush further said that if the o in rising through the concrete interval
to the vanishing movement blends the [u] of the diphthong with the
final er, only one syllable results. The final [r] becomes the vanish of
[a] and the word is spoken as one syllable, thus [flour].

He added to the foregoing comment on the word flower, the explana-
tion of how a y is often inserted between awkward combinations of
successive tonics as in aorta. This reduces the necessity of a point of
junction in vocality in order to start the radical of the second tonic
after the vanish of the preceding tonic. If the y is inserted, a continuous
utterance is created with the y, [i], becoming the vanish of the pre-
ceding tonic.

These two incidental observations of Rush demonstrate his recog-
nition of the concept of glide on the basis of the reaction of the radical
and vanishing movement to these particular alphabetic constructions.

230 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Rush made rather significant observations in the field of phonetic
analysis which apparently were of less interest to his contemporaries
and followers, and consequently have not been identified among his
contributions to speech pedagogy.

The fifth point of originality in Rush's vocal theory was his detailed
description of the specific interval of inflection. He described the emo-
tional and intellectual impressions created by the use of certain intervals
of pitch-change in the spoken word. These vary from semi-tone changes
in plaintive expression, when the change in pitch is so slight between
the radical and vanishing movement that only the trained ear will
recognize it as a varying pitch, to the octave inflection of interrogation
and emphasis. He described the effect of these intervals as they occur
in both rising or falling slides, in the circumflex and in the step forms.
These variations are so rapid and in some cases so minute that it is
difficult to recognize their existence as an important discriminating
factor between speech and song. They are responsible, however, for
much of the emotion and shades of meaning in speech.

These five phases of his vocal philosophy may be regarded as the
most significant and original contributions of his book.

Rush made other contributions to speech education in his treatise on
voice. Among them were his arrangement and treatment of vocal ele-
ments which became the pattern many teachers used in formulating
their own instructional theory. Although almost all aspects of his de-
scription of vocal elements were already in literature,36 Rush's own
arrangement, terminology, and observable variations of course con-
stituted definitive differences. His use of the concept of radical and
vanish permeated his presentation and gave it original character.

Some mention should be made of Rush's treatment of vocal quality,
since there appears to be some difference of opinion in later literature
concerning his statement of this element and because of its relationship
to the Natural History of the Intellect.

The chapters in the Philosophy which Rush subjected to greater
revision than any others throughout the six editions were those dealing
with verbal expression of mind and passion, and with the physiological
description of voice. Rush believed one cannot understand the quality
of voice without knowing what structures are involved in the produc-
tion of it; hence as he attempted to give physiological description to
vocal quality, he utilized what information was known factually about
the anatomy of the vocal mechanism, added his own observations, and
described all vocal behavior as physiological functioning of structure.
Such study, evolving from his long-range intentions of discovering
states of the mind, was subject to much revision and eventually pro-
duced his opinion on "Vocal Signs of Thought and Passion."37 The

DR. JAMES RUSH 231

relationship of his work on voice to his later volumes on intellect is
more clearly seen in this aspect of voice analysis. In an attempt to
understand the mind, he described in detail the peripheral, or vocal,
signs of thought and feeling. After recording such observation in terms
of vocal quality, inflections, changes of stress, and time, he then at-
tempted to describe all the possible thoughts and passions which might
give rise to such variety of vocal signs. Thus The Philosophy of the
Human Voice, which was born of his medical inquiry into mind, itself
became the parent of The Natural History of the Intellect, the product
of his attempt to describe the combinations of mental functioning which
give rise to vocal expression.

Throughout all the editions of Rush the total number of vocal qual-
ities described in any way are six. Of these, the nasal quality is men-
tioned only as a subtonic in his classification of phonetic elements, and
the guttural is given as a defective and unpleasant utterance already
described by rhetoricians. The whisper is listed as a quality of voice
until the sixth edition of his text, when he used the term uocality for
quality, and hence the whisper could not qualify.

The natural quality of voice is that used in ordinary speaking and
employs complete pitch range. It is produced by the vibration of the
vocal cords and is capable of discrete, concrete and tremulous pitch
motion. Lively or moderate sentiments of colloquial dialogue and of
familiar lecture and discourse are expressed by this quality as Rush
described it.

The falsette [sic] is "that peculiar voice in which the higher degrees
of pitch are made, after the natural voice breaks or outruns its
power/' 38

Again, all the phonetic elements may be made in the falsette ( except
of course, atonies ) and it has the same pitch flexibility, although lim-
ited in range; it is made with the same mechanism which produces the
normal voice. It is frequently used in screaming, and giving expression
to pain and surprise.

The whisper, which is merely a continuant of atonic elements, is a
form of producing speech which is used in expressing secrecy, and
gives rise to the aspirated form of vocalization. The aspirate, per se, is
never referred to as a quality of voice.

The orotund voice is "that natural or improved manner of uttering
elements which exhibits them with a fullness, clearness, strength,
smoothness, and a ringing or musical quality, rarely heard in ordinary
speech/' 39 It is obtainable, Rush believed, only after much cultivation
of voice; in speech, it would require the adaptation of the "pure tone"
production of singing and a more complete control of expiration. Its
advantages in speaking are to give a greater fullness and smoothness

232 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

to voice, to aid in distinct articulation, to give greater strength and
musical value, and to maintain voice under better control. He declared
it to be a most useful quality for interpretative purposes, but in no
way should it detract from one's use of the normal quality.

Thus, Rush gave explanation to vocal quality-a phenomenon of
voice resulting from the function of body structure under government
of mind. Expression of thought, changes in emphasis, and passion it-
self are all evidenced as the product of changing combinations of
quality, pitch, force, rhythm. Again it should be remembered that
while Rush made a detailed description of the isolated speech proc-
esses, he expressed the modern viewpoint that it is the total, complete,
and cumulative effect which is expressive. Each of the elements gives
its share of support to the whole, but no element should itself be
noticeable in the patterns of expressive communication.

While the Philosophy became very popular with teachers of elocu-
tion after its first edition in 1827, it still did not give Rush the recog-
nition which would have permitted his return to his earlier scientific
studies. Accordingly, he felt that if he could attain a reputation as a
literary writer, using his early love and aptitude for poetic composi-
tion, he might achieve the popular acclaim he needed to pave the way
for his profound medical discourse. This resulted in the publication in
1834 of Hamlet, A Dramatic Prelude in Five Acts.40 In this effort too,
he fell short of the mark and remained obscure as a literary figure as
well as a scientist.

Rush took heart, however, from the early appeal of the Philosophy
and revised it three times before attempting to finish his work on the
mind. By a few teachers such as Jonathan Barber, the Philosophy was
held to be an unprecedented triumph. On the other hand, Barber
himself suffered great social and professional reverses because of cham-
pioning and even associating with a man whom society did not greatly
respect.41 Barber's Exercises in Reading 42 published in 1823 was en-
tirely in accord with Rush and the two men were immediately attracted
to each other. In fact, Rush attributed a large part of the Philosophy's
success to Jonathan Barber. Others who apparently approved were
Jonathan's younger brother John,43 a lecturer in the City of New York;
Samuel Gummere,44 then principal of a school in Burlington, New
Jersey; a Mr. Dennison, an Irishman and teacher in Philadelphia; Dr.
Andrew Comstock,45 a physician who had established himself as a
teacher of elocution in Philadelphia; and William Bryant, a clergyman
of the Episcopal Church.

DR. JAMES RUSH 233

Several authors used material directly from Rush, probably without
his consent. Rush had obvious reason to be incensed by plagiarisms of
authors like Rev. W. B. Lacey,46 Lyman Cobb,47 Richard Cull,48 and
there is evidence of much unpleasant exchange of correspondence be-
tween Rush and men who were attempting to take advantage of him.
He wrote Charles Whitney and accused him of unauthorized use of
his name in an Albany, New York, Evening Journal advertisement
which announced Whitney as a teacher of reading, declamation, and

singing.49

The fact that Rush wrote at all in the field of speech was rather
accidental and resulted from an unusual turn of affairs. Yet once he
demonstrated that human vocal expression could be observed in minute
detail and given an orderly and systematic description, he established
a precedent which lesser men than he were to abuse. Rush did not
plan a prescriptive system for teachers of elocution, but intended to
show nature's orderly design. That he should have given impetus to a
trend towards mechanical artifice of communication and aesthetic art
was an unhappy ending to a noble determination to discover scientific
facts about human behavior.

Many simplifications of his system were soon published by teachers
who sought to present a concise outline of elocutionary art to students.
These abridgements did not recognize his true purpose but prescribed
the very artifices Rush had sought to remedy. In the Preface to the third
edition of his Philosophy, Rush took occasion to condemn the practice
of simplifying his system for schools:

This attempt, either by its very purpose, or by the manner of its execution
has perhaps had the effect to retard the progress of our new system of the
voice. For, the superficial character of these books, and the mingling of parts
of the old method with parts of the new, together with an attempt to give
definition and order to these scattered materials, has left the inquirer unsatis-
fied, if indeed, it has not brought his mind to confusion.50

He continues later:

One of the purposes of this work is to show, by refuting an almost univer-
sal belief to the contrary, that elocution can be scientifically taught, but the
manner of explanation and arrangement in too many of these garbled school-
book compilations, has gone far towards satisfying the objectors that it can-
not.51

on the voice was regarded as the first part of his
o^ffitrrd; 'ttef elt that the Human Intellect was essential
to the un Jef s'taMing of the Philosophy and should have been published
as a comj|anic» work. And so it proved to be; for mid-twentieth
century" speech pedagqgy, m keeping with Rush's basic views, holds

234 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

speech to be a total physical reaction inseparable from thought, action,
and emotion. Some teachers of speech today, however, ridicule what
they believe to be the mechanical and superficial "system" he insti-
gated, which was in reality a popular application gaining reputation
before his major investigation of mind was revealed and his total
philosophy of behavior understood.

After editing the Philosophy for the last time in 1866 (the 1879
edition was a reprint, following the terms of his will), his last publi-
cation was Rhymes of Contract on Wisdom and Folly, appearing in
the year of his death. It attempted to give evidence of the working
principles of The Natural History of the Intellect. He demonstrated in
his writing of the dialogue in rhyme the use of "natural or related ties*'
as an involuntary process of thought resulting from prior perceptions.
This process of association had been described in its defective state by
Dr. Benjamin Rush as "dissociations," 52 and no doubt referred to the
disorder known today as "dysphasia." "It consists not in false percep-
tion . . . but of an association of unrelated perceptions, or ideas, from
inability of the mind to perform the operations of judgment and
reason/' 53

The last years with his wife prior to her death had been under
estranged conditions. This, together with his failure to obtain public
approval for his work, embittered him. He retired from the society
which had rejected him, to become a recluse, totally disillusioned,
much misunderstood. Just prior to his death he apparently dictated a
final statement to his brother-in-law, Henry J. Williams, who became
executor of his estate; it read: "Dr. James Rush died in 1869 from
difficulty of breathing in the eighty-fourth year of his age." 54 It was
written in another hand (probably that of Mr. Williams whose initials,
H. J. W., appear in the left-hand corner) but a last shaky signature of
James Rush is affixed to the document. His will, among other pro-
visions, called for the construction of a library building to be given to
the Library Company of Philadelphia, and called the Ridgway Branch,
in memory of his wife. In it were to be housed his entire private
library and that of his father, whom he had admired and unsuccessfully
imitated. This collection has served many scholars who seek after the
works of Benjamin and James Rush. In a memorial tomb in the Ridg-
way Library, James Rush rests with his wife, uncomforted still by the
"knock of friends" and too often misunderstood by a profession he
accidentally came to serve.

As a medical scientist who was led to explore the entity called mind
and as a "voice scientist" who rigorously studied vocal behavior, James

DR. JAMES RUSH 235

Rush was probably the first investigator to see that mind is inseparable
from the physical phenomena of self-expression. His fellow scientists,
hampered by their prejudices, could not fairly criticize his views.
Overly-zealous teachers of elocution, misusing the information of his
Philosophy, earned him ill repute among most modern teachers of
speech. Perhaps only the speech historian of the 1950's understands
that his field stands in heavy debt to Dr. Rush.

Notes

1. James Rush, The Philosophy of the Human Voice: Embracing Its Physio-
logical History: Together with a System of Principles by Which Criticism in the
Art of Elocution May be Rendered Intelligible, and Instruction, Definite and Com-
prehensive. To which is added a Brief Analysis of Song and Recitative (Philadel-
phia, 1827). Hereafter cited as Philosophy. Other editions: 1833, 1845 1855 1859
1867, 1879. '

2. See The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush, ed., George W. Corner (Prince-
ton, 1948). Richard Rush had become Attorney General of the United States in
1813 under President Monroe and it would have been most embarrassing to him if
in this year of his father's death, the autobiography were released to the public
with its revelations concerning the heroic personalities of the nation's fathers. Hence
Richard and James, even after much deletion and editing, agreed to prevent its
publication. It has recently been published after it came into the possession of the
American Philosophical Society in 1943, through the papers of Alexander Biddle,
grandson of Samuel Rush, a brother of Richard and James, who had taken them
"without authority" from James' Library.

3. For example, see letter of Dr. E. Miller to Benjamin Rush, New York, July
2, 1809. Rush Papers, Library Company of Philadelphia, Ridgway Branch.

4. Nathan Goodman, Benjamin Rush, Physician and Citizen (Philadelphia
1934), pp. 254-255. F

5. Medical Inquiries and Observations upon, the Diseases of the Mind 3rd ed
(Philadelphia, 1827), pp. 8-9.

6. Dugald Stewart, Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind (Brattle-
boro, 1808), [First ed, 1792].

7. James Rush, A Brief Outline of the Analysis of the Human Intellect; In-
tended to Rectify the Scholastic and Vulgar Perversions of the Natural Purpose,
and Method of Thinking; by Rejecting Altogether The Theoretic Confusion, The
Unmeaning Arrangement, and Indefinite Nomenclature of the Metaphysician, 2
vols. (Philadelphia, 1865), II, 435-436. Hereafter cited as Human Intellect.

8. Ibid, II, 436.

9. Letters of Benjamin Rush, ed. L. H. Butterfield, 2 vols. (Princeton, 1951),
I, p. Ixix.

10. Ibid., Benjamin Rush to Mrs. Rush, July 16, 1791, p. 600.

11. Human Intellect, II, 472.

12. Notation by Rush, in Rush Papers, December 14, 1835, Ridgway Branch,
Library Company of Philadelphia.

13. James Rush, Rhymes of Contrast on Wisdom and Folly. A Comparison Be-
tween Observant and Reflective Age, Derisively Called Fogie, and a Senseless and
Unthinking American Go-Ahead. Intended to Exemplify An Important Agent in the
Working Plan of the Human Intellect (Philadelphia, 1869), p. xi.

14. Mary Rush to Rush, August 10, 1834. Rush Papers.

15. Human Intellect, II, 474.

16. IWd.,1,9.

236 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

17. Human Intellect, I, 195. Beginning with the fourth edition, 1855, of the
Philosophy, Rush attempted to introduce the double comma as a punctuation mark
to be of value between a single comma and a semi-colon.

18. Human Intellect, 1, 189.

19. Ibid., p. 4.

20. Ibid., II, 1.

21. Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, July 12, 1900.

22. Human Intellect, II, 471.

23. Ibid., p. 472.

24. Ibid., p. 473.

25. Robert Smith, Harmonics, or the Philosophy of Musical Sounds (London,
1759).

26. Human Intellect, II, 475.

27. Rush's marginal notation in his personal copy of John Walker, Elements of
Elocution (Boston, 1810), p. 244.

28. Philosophy (1845), p. 123.

29. Philosophy (1859), p. 503.

30. Philosophy (1827), pp. 548-549.

31. Among other authors whose books Rush used are: Rev. James Chapman,
The Music, or Melody and Rhythms of Language. . . (Edinburgh, 1818); William
Cockin, The Art of Delivering Written Language; or, an Essay on Reading . . .
(London, 1775); John Dwyer, An Essay on Elocution (Cincinnati, 1824); William
Enfield, The Speaker, or Miscellaneous Pieces Selected from the Best English
Writers . . . (London, 1835; Dedication dated 1774); John Foster, An Essay on the
Different Nature of Accent and Quality . . . ( London, 1761 ) ; Henry Home of Kames,
Elements of Criticism, 2 vols. (Philadelphia, 1816); John Mason, An Essay on
Elocution or Pronunciation, . . . (London, 1748 ) , An Essay on the Power of Num-
bers, and the Principles of Harmony in Poetical Composition . . . (London, 1749),
An Essay on the Power and Harmony of Prosaic Numbers . . . ( London, 1749 ) ;
Abb6 Maury, The Principles of Eloquence: Adapted to the Pulpit and the Bar,
tr. John Neal Lake (London, 1793); Lord Monboddo, Essays on the Origin and
Progress of Language, 6 vols. (Edinburgh, 1774); Messieurs du Royal Port, The
Art of Speaking: In Pursuance of a Former Treatise, Intituled, The Art of Thinking
(London, 1708); Ebenezer Porter, Analysis of the Principles of Rhetorical Deliv-
ery as Applied in Reading and Speaking ( Boston, 1827 ) , Art of Speaking ( Phila-
delphia, 1775); Thomas Sheridan, A Rhetorical Grammar of the English Language,
calculated solely for the Purposes of Teaching Propriety of Pronunciation, and Just-
ness of Delivery . . . (Philadelphia, 1783), A Course of Lectures on Elocution: to-
gether with Two Dissertations on Language . . . (London, 1781), Lectures on the
Art of Reading (London, 1798); B. H. Smart, A Practical Grammar of English
Pronunciation*. . (London: John Richardson, 1810), The Practice of Elocution,
(London, 1826), The Theory of Elocution: to which are now added, Practical Aids
for Reading the Liturgy (London, 1826); Sir Joshua Steele, An Essay Towards
Establishing the Music and Measure of Speech to be Expressed and Perpetuated by
Peculiar Symbols (London, 1775); W. Thelwall, Introductory Discourse on the
Nature and Objects of Elocutionary Science . . . (London, 1805); John Walker, A
Key to the Classical Pronunciation (Philadelphia, 1808), A Rhetorical Grammar in
which the Common Improprieties in Reading and Speaking are Detected . . . ( Bos-
ton, 1814), Elements of Elocution, being the Substance of a Course of Lectures on
the Art of Reading ... 2 vols. (London, 1781 ), The Melody of Speaking Delineated
(London, 1787).

32. Philosophy (1827), p. 29 ff.

33. Ibid., p. 43.

34. Ibid., p. 82,

35. Ibid., p. 83.

36. See note 31 for writers whose books were among those available to Rush
and no doubt of service to him.

DR. JAMES RUSH 237

37. Philosophy (1859), p. 478 ff.

38. Philosophy (1833), p. 83.

39. Ibid., p. 90.

40. (Philadelphia, 1834).

41. From a section of the Printer's Copy of the 2nd edition of the Philosophy
which was omitted from the 1833 edition.

42. Exercises in Reading and Recitation (Baltimore, 1823).

43. Exercises in Reading and Recitation (Albany, 1828).

44. A Compendium of the Principles of Elocution on the Basis of Dr. Rush's
Philosophy of the Human Voice ( Philadelphia, 1857 ).

45. Practical Elocution (Philadelphia, 1830).

46. Elocution (Albany, 1828).

47. N. A. Reader (Zanesville, Ohio, 1836).

48. Garrick's Mode of Reading the Liturgy of the Church of England (London
1840).

49. James Rush's letters, Ridgway Branch, Library Company of Philadelphia

50. Philosophy (1845), p. xi. *

51. Ibid.

52. Medical Inquiries and Observations upon the Diseases of the Mind, p 257

53. Ibid.

54. James Rush Papers.

11 The Literary Society1

DAVID POTTER

When a multitude of young men, keen, open-hearted, sympathetic, and
observant, as young men are, come together and freely mix with each
other, they are sure to learn one from another, even if there be no one
to teach them; the conversation of all is a series of lectures to each,
and they gain for themselves new ideas and views, fresh matter of
thought, and distinct principles for judging and acting, day by day.
—JOHN HENRY NEWMAN, The Idea of a University

As the previous studies in this volume have indicated, an outstanding
characteristic of the early American college was its tightly knit and
closely regulated constitution. Indeed, one might conclude from an
examination of the college laws and regulations that the daily life,
social as well as curricular, of the student was designed "to reduce to a
minimum the time the devil might find employment for idle hands"
and idle minds.2

When judged by modern standards, however, the colonial student,
despite his closely supervised schedule, did not lead a particularly
strenuous life. But unless he strolled within bounds or indulged in the
mild forms of exercise not on the banned list, he had few approved
methods of consuming his surplus energy. The company of young
ladies was usually forbidden during college sessions. Organized ath-
letics were unheard of. And even the privilege of reading contemporary
periodicals, much less current fiction, was denied him because the
ordinary college library contained few if any "authors who have wrote
within these SO years." 3

The company of his fellow scholars was practically the only legit-
of escape from the academic routine which remained
colonial student. It is to be expected, therefore, that
societies featuring jovial companionship as well as student-directed
opportunities for parliamentary practice, oratory, declamation, debate,
literary efforts, dramatic "productions/' and reading, material, all rela-
tively free from faculty censorship and, usually, protected from "pry-

THE LITERACY SOCIETY 239

ing" eyes by high walls of secrecy, would come into being almost from
the beginning of American higher education.

Rise of the Societies

In the North and South

Althoughrstudent societies of a religious nature had existed on the
American" college"" campus at least as early as 1716? the first of the col-
lege^literary and debate societies appears to have been the Spy Club
of "Harvard which, in its bylaws of 1722, was stipulating:

That a discourse of about Twenty minutes be made at every meeting by
one of the Society on any Subject he pleaseth.

That any Difficulty may be proposed to the Company & when propos'd the
company shall Deliver their Thdts upon It.

That there be a Disputation on Two or more questions at every Meeting,
one part of the Company holding the Affirmative, the other the Negative part
of ye Question.4

By 1782, Harvard was also the site of the Philomusarian Club, con-
certed "in order— to Stem That Monstrous Tide of Impiety & Ignorance
which is Like to Sweep all Before it & for Our Mutual advantage &
Emolum*. . . ," 5 and in 1770, of the Speaking Club of Harvard, later
called the American Institute of 1770, which sternly ruled that "no
Member shah1 speak in Latin in his turn nor at any other time without
special Leave from the President." 6

At Yale, in 1753, the long-lived Linonian Society was founded,
largely through the efforts of President Clap (one of the first college
administrators to recognize the importance of the societies as under-
graduate safety valves as well as literary and forensic proving grounds) .
But even earlier, at least by 1750, an ephemeral coUege society, the
Critonian, was conducting literary sessions in New Haven. And in 1768,
the second major Yale society, the Brothers in Unity, disputed ques-
tions of its choosing.

Before the outbreak of the Revolution, other colonial chartered col-
leges witnessed the rise of undergraduate and graduate student so-
cieties. On November 11, 1750, the Flat Hat Club was founded at
William and Mary and included Thomas Jefferson on its rolls, while
on December 5, 1776, the Phi Beta Kappa society was constituted at
the Williamsburg college with "Friendship for its Basis, Benevolence
and Literature for its Pillars. . . /' and with the assurance to its initiates
that "now . . . you may for awhile disengage yourself from scholastic
Laws and communicate without reserve whatever reflections you may
have made upon various objects. . . ." 7

240 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Princeton, then the College of New Jersey, appears to have been
the scene of society rivalry early in its history. From the pioneering
Plain-Dealing and Well-Meaning clubs, sprang two of our most vig-
orous college societies, the American Whig in 1769 and the Cliosophic
in 1770,

Columbia (King's College) also had active forensic societies early
in its history. On June 11, 1766, the New York Weekly Gazette or
Weekly Post Boy informed its readers that "Several gentlemen having
thought proper to form themselves into a ... Literary Society, for the
encouragement of learning., have raised a fund. . . ." It is likely that
Alexander Hamilton belonged to this or similar society during his stay
at King's.

Rutgers (Queen's College) also supported at least two pre-Revolu-
tionary societies. Little is known of the Polemic other than a reference
to its existence by Simeon De Witt in a letter to John Bogart dated
February 14, 1778. At this time, however, another society, the Athe-
nian, had been in existence "on the Banks" for five years, polishing the
minds and beautifying the manners of a select group of students, fac-
ulty members, and townsfolk.

In the years which followed the war and particularly in the first two
decades of the nineteenth century, the majority of the longer lasting
societies were established at the older colleges. Such stalwarts were
activated as the Hasty Pudding Club of Harvard in 1795, a society
which even in its infancy mixed such stunts as the breach of promise
case of Dido vs. Aeneas with serious debates on "questions of literature,
morality and politics"; Philolexian in 1802 and Peithologian four years
later at Columbia; Philoclean and Peithessophian at Rutgers by 1825;
the Misokosmian (later the Philermenian) in 1794 and the United
Brothers in 1806 at Brown; the Social Friends in 1783 and the United
Fraternity in 1786 at Dartmouth; and the Philomathean in 1813 and
Zelosophic in 1829 at Pennsylvania.

At other prominent colleges north and south of the Mason-Dixon
line, strong student societies were functioning soon after college classes
were formed. For example, three years after the receipt of its charter,
Dickinson was the site of the Belles Lettres Society (in 1786), As
early as 1795, the Debating Society, parent of the Dialectic and the
Concord Societies, was featuring debating, composing, reading, speak-
ing, and parliamentary procedure at North Carolina. In 1803, scarcely
two years after the opening of the college, Demosthenians turned on
their flow of oratory at the University of Georgia. At Hamilton, all
students were expected to join one of the two societies, the Phoenix
and the Union, which were founded in 1812, the year the college was
chartered.

THE LITERARY SOCIETY 241

In the West

As highep'-educajtion spread to the West, the literary and debate
societies' found fertile ground and were amply nourished by appreci-
ative^ administrations and student bodies even after many of the older
Northern and Southern organizations were in a period of decline.

Atrthe Ohio colleges, the first student society appears to have been
the Zelothean founded at Ohio University inj.812, some eight years
after the organization of the college. Other Ohio campuses were even
more receptive. At Western Reserve, Joseph Welch Barr, a transfer
from Hamilton, helped form the Philozetian Society six weeks before
the organization of a faculty at the college. In 1830, the Adelphic and
Franklin Societies were founded at Reserve and from them descended
Phi Delta. Oberlin, founded in 1833, had its share of vocal student or-
ganizations shortly after its doors were opened. But its most interesting
claim to forensic fame lies in its fostering of the Young Ladies' Associa-
tion "for the promotion of literature and religion" in 1835, the first of
the female societies in our colleges. Also, in 1835, Denison, founded
four years earlier, gave its support to the Calliopean Society and, in
1843, to the Franklin Literary Society, important forces in campus
politics as well as in literary and forensic endeavors.

In Indiana, the colleges were as active forensically as their Ohio
counterparts both in the classroom and in the "halls" of the student
societies. In 1830, one year after Indiana University emerged from its
Seminary days, the Athenian Society was founded, followed by the
Philomathean Society in 1831. At little Wabash, the Philomatheans
dated their history from 1834, the year of the college charter. In 1835,
the Western Literary Society, later the Euphronean, was chartered by
the state. Similarly, DePauw sponsored the Philological Society in 1870
and the co-educational Atlantis Society in 1873. And Notre Dame,
while not so forensic-minded as other Indiana colleges, harbored such
interesting associations as the St. Cecilia which, according to the 1870
catalog, was a dramatic and musical society as well as a debating club;
and the Thespians, a pioneer among Indiana collegiate dramatic asso-
ciations in 1861.

In 1850, the year the first undergraduate class was formed at the
University of Wisconsin, the first of the Madison literary societies was
established at a faculty-sponsored meeting. Following the advent of
this organization, named the Athenian by Chancellor John Lathrop, a
number of other societies were created by student groups, chief among
them being the Hesperian in 1853 and the Castalia, a women's club,
in 1864.

Moving farther west, the pattern was repeated at the major state

242 KHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

supported colleges in Iowa. At the State University in 1861, but one
year after the establishment of the collegiate department, the Zeta-
gathian Society adopted its constitution, followed by the short-lived
"Copperhead" splinter society, the Ciceronian, in 1862, and the Irving
Institute in 1864. At Ames, the Iowa Agricultural College (Iowa State
College) faculty sponsored the co-educational Philomathean Society
during the pre-collegiate term in 1868 and in 1870 welcomed the
Bachelor Society, which was followed in 1871 by the women's Cliolian.
As higher education was made available to the inhabitants of the
far west, the majority of the college administrators followed the estab-
lished practice of sponsoring literary and debating societies. Accord-
ingly, the 1868-1869 catalog of the University of Deseret (University
of Utah) declared:

Literary Societies will be found among the attractive and beneficial fea-
tures of the University.

They will be organized among the students, and have for their objects a
theoretical and practical training in oratory, debate, declamation, composi-
tion and parliamentary rule and order.8

At the "pioneer university of the west," Willamette, the Philomath-
ean Society was incorporated by the Oregon Territorial Legislature
in 1856, three years after the college was chartered. Unlike most of the
societies of this period, Philomathean was established not only for
students but also for faculty members and college sponsors. Within
the next seventeen years, something new was added— two sets of
brother and sister societies, Concordia (ladies) in 1861 and Hesperian
(men) in 1865; and Alka (men) in 1866 and Atheneum (ladies) in
1870* At first, three joint meetings were held each term. By 1874,
however, only one joint meeting was permitted per term and we read
that "promiscuous meetings of the two sexes in the Society Halls . . .
are forbidden except when some member of the Faculty is present or
special permission has been granted " 9

Moving south along the Pacific, we note that in 1857, Santa Clara
sponsored the first meeting of the Literary Congress which divided its
members into two houses, the Philalethic Senate and the Philhistorian
House.

Thus by the time of the Civil War, the literary and debate society
had extended its grasp on student extracurricular life from coast to
coast.

Scope of The Societies— Debating

As their records indicate, the societies were catholic in the distribu-
tion of their energies and prescribed such varied exercises as spelling
(in the old halls of Princeton) and declamation. They also sponsored

THE LITERARY SOCIETY 243

magazines, imported prominent speakers, and conducted elaborate
exhibitions for the edification of collegians, faculty, and townsfolk. But
from the 1820's until their eventual/ decline, society energy, in the
main, was concentrated upon society debating.

The Forensic Disputation

IJJntil the rise of the student societies, the major or, in many instances,
the only approved method of conducting academic debate in many
American colleges was the Latin syllogistic disputation. Practically un-
changed since its inception in the medieval universities, the Latin
exercise was an important part of most early curricula and a feature of
college exhibitions and commencements. Its format was strictly gov-
erned by rules laid down by the prevailing texts in logic and differed
but slightly whether employed as a teaching and testing device or as
a medium for academic display T\

As indicated by BartholomewHbCeckermann's Systema Logicae, pop-
ular at Harvard in the seventeenth century, and by The Improvement
of the Mind, by the prolific eighteenth-century writer, Isaac Watts, the
classroom procedure followed this regimen: a tutor or Professor, often
the reverend president, selected a question in one of the arts or
sciences taught in the college. A respondent was then appointed to
defend the side of the question which, in the opinion of the tutor,
represented truth. The remaining students in the class were then de-
tailed to act as opponents with the express duty of raising logical
objections to the question which the respondent either affirmed or
denied.

The disputation was opened by the respondent who first read a
carefully worded Latin discourse in which he stated the question, de-
fined and delimited the question, and presented his strongest logically
constructed arguments. Each of the opponents, then, made his objec-
tion to the case, drawn up in the form of a syllogism in which he either
denied the major or minor premises or distinguished between the
accepted usage of key words and the manner in which they were used
by the respondent. The respondent, in turn, attempted to vindicate his
argument by use of other syllogisms which the opponent denied or
reinterpreted until the objections were silenced and "truth" triumphed
logically. The tutor, of course, was always on hand to help out should
the respondent falter in his command of logic and Latin.10

Founded to offset the uncompromising rigidity of the early American
academic climate, the societies were quick to adopt types of debate
which were more flexible and thus more suitable to the contemporary
scene than the Latin syllogistics. As their minutes indicate, the "Two
or more questions at every Meeting" ordered by the Spy Club consti-

244 KHETOBIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

tution in 1722 were debated in English, anticipating the earliest rec-
ord of curricular debating in die mother tongue by twenty-five years.
It is likely, however, that the early English disputations resembled the
Latin exercises insofar as they were carefully written and read or else
committed to memory. They differed from the syllogistics, nevertheless,
in several ways other than the linguistic. In the first place, as available
examples of these English forensic disputations indicate, the use of
emotional proof forbidden in the Latin exercise was not only per-
mitted but encouraged in the newer method of argumentation. In the
second place, although logic still played a prominent part in the con-
structive speeches of the forensic disputation, the syllogism was rele-
gated to a minor position. And while, as we shall see, the questions
discussed (or debated) were, at first, closely related to Latin theses
disputed in the contemporary classrooms, a change in emphasis was
not long in coming.

The Extempore Disputation

Eventually, of course, the college administrations recognized the
value of the student initiated exercise. By 1747, English disputations
were being held in Yale classrooms and ten years later, the president
and fellows of Harvard voted "that once in a month the two sen.r
classes have their disputations in English & that in the forensic man-
ner " al But by that time, the collegians were experimenting with

something else. On November 6? 1766, for example, the Yale Fellowship
Club minutes inform us that "the meeting was opened by an Extempore
dispute by Bulkley, Kimberly and Lyon." 12

By the end of the eighteenth century, many of the societies had
adopted the extempore disputation as an additional form of debate,
although one cannot determine what was meant by the term "ex-
tempore." At William and Mary in 1778, the minutes of Phi Beta Kappa
indicate that the extempore was an impromptu exercise: "It be more-
over strongly recommended to the other members as an additional and
improving Exercise, to give their sentiments extempore on the same
subject after hearing the others [who were assigned to forensics]." 13
But when the Phi Beta Kappa Society of Harvard introduced the
extempore debate in 1785, the brothers apparently understood the
term to have the meaning commonly held today, for the debaters were
assigned to the exercise at a previous meeting, thus giving ample time
for preparation and reasoned consideration—a provision also found in
the laws of the Alpha chapter of New Hampshire in 1787 and the
United Fraternity of Dartmouth in 1793.

As early as April 10, 1783, at least one society recognized the rel-
ative importance of the extempore debate to would-be lawyers and

THE LITERABY SOCIETY 245

legislators. At that time, the Linonians voted that "two of the weekly
meetings out of three be opened with an extempore Dispute and the

third , . . with a forensic Dispute " 14 And by "extempore," the Yale

men meant well prepared but not read or memorized constructive
speeches, even though their intentions often outdistanced their per-
formances.15

In 1810, the United Brothers of Brown prescribed extempore de-
bating as the debating exercise of the society, a provision in force as
late as July 7, 1855. In 1831, the Phi Beta Kappa Society of Harvard
followed suit, and by the middle of the century, many society consti-
tutions carried similar provisions although the forensic exercise was
listed in some constitutions until the end of the nineteenth century.

Toward the middle of the century, the caliber of the forensic and
extempore disputations was so high in the societies that several colleges
dropped the exercises from the curriculum. Thus at Columbia, on Jan-
uary 4, 1837, the trustees were informed that "no exercises in extempo-
raneous speaking or debating were required from the Students, as there
are two Societies ... of which these exercises constitute the principal
objects.*' ie

Intersociety Debating

At the turn of the century, the societies made another important
contribution to debate history. Motivated by an intense rivalry which
spurred the sister societies to extreme and, occasionally, ridiculous out-
bursts of energy, outstanding debaters, carefully selected and condi-
tioned by their sponsors, "crossed" arguments at public exhibitions. As
early as 1830, the Demosthenians and the Phi Kappas met at the Uni-
versity of Georgia. Before long, challenges and counter challenges were
exchanged between the two leading societies of each college and the
annual intersociety debates were a regular campus fixture.17

Then only a few decades after the first intersociety debates, some-
thing novel was introduced. To the best of my knowledge, it first hap-
pened at Illinois College on May 5, 1881. There, perhaps stimulated by
the interstate oratorical contest held in Jacksonville early in the spring,
the Phi Alpha Society of Illinois and the Adelphi Society of Knox met
in a series of literary contests, Phi Alpha winning the debate, and
Adelphi garnering honors in declamation, oratory, and essay writing.
And the following day, at Kirkpatrick Chapel, in New Brunswick, New
Jersey, the three representatives of Peithessophian (then struggling
against general student inertia) successfully upheld the status quo
against the representatives of New York University's Philomathean
Society, who argued the affirmative of "Resolved that the only limi-
tations on suffrage in the United States should be those of age and

246 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

sex/' Intercollegiate decision debating had arrived and, in the North,
just in time to revive undergraduate and faculty interest in forensics.18

Debate Procedure

Because of the secret nature of the majority of the societies and
because of the relative newness of academic debating in the vernacular,
the early rules and regulations for the forensic and extempore exercises
varied greatly from society to society and from college to college. Even
toward the middle of the nineteenth century, there was little agreement
among the rival organizations as to the selection of debaters and topics
and as to the time and order allotted. Nor, as we shall see, was there a
set pattern within the societies.

Selecting the Debaters

The majority of societies, like the Speaking Club of Harvard, rotated
all exercises among the various performing classes, which, in turn, were
constituted either by academic seniority or alphabetical distribution.
Other groups, like the American Whigs in 1807, provided that the dis-
putants "shall be appointed by the moderator** with the privilege of
entering the discussion open to all society members after the appointed
disputants had completed their arguments.19 A few parliamentary
minded organizations like the Society of Brothers in Unity in 1783,
selected disputants by society nomination at the "preceding evening." 20
Societies which featured impromptu debates, like the United Frater-
nity in 1857, often prescribed that the disputants volunteer "as the role
is called by the Secretary." 21 A farsighted variation of this method of
appointing debaters was adopted by still other societies like the Lino-
nian in 1835, when they voted that "whenever the requisite number,
shall not be obtained by members voluntarily offering themselves, the
deficiency, shall be supplied by appointments from the President."22
Still another common provision in the society constitutions resembled
the regulation of the Dialectic Association of Oberlin in 1839: "The
Exec Committee (President, Vice-President, and Recording Secretary)
shall appoint four disputants to occupy not over 15 minutes." 23

The Number and Order of Debaters

In general, two to six debaters were appointed or volunteered for the
regular debates although most societies provided for an unlimited num-
ber of volunteer debaters after the regular speakers had performed.
However, one cannot generalize so easily about the order of the dis-
putants. At Brown, for example, the Philermenian Society, in 17983
specified that "the Disputants shall speak in the following order— the
first in the Affirmative shall open, the two in the Negative shall close

THE LITERARY SOCIETY 247

upon him; and the second in the Affirmative shall close upon them;
and then any Member may have liberty to offer his sentiments/' 24 At
Columbia, the society rules merely prescribed that the "President shall
be empowered to select one from the Affirm. & one from the Neg. to
open the debate . . ." with the order from that point on to be determined
by the remaining contestants.25 The majority of societies, however, like
the Philoclean of Rutgers in 1832, required the affirmative to open the
debate, each side speaking alternately.

Time Allotted for Debate

Although a few societies, like those at Georgia described by Professor
Ellis M. Coulter in College Life in the Old South, turned on their ora-
tory as early as nine o'clock on a Saturday morning and forgot to shut
it off until the night had almost expired, the great majority of societies
held their regular meetings in the evening and their constitutions
strictly regulated the time allotted to the regularly appointed and the
volunteer debaters. As might be expected, however, there was little
agreement as to the limitations. Thus, for example, the Dialectic Asso-
ciation of Oberlin allotted its four disputants not over fifteen minutes
in 1839. At neighboring Western Reserve in 1840, Phi Delta allowed
the entire division assigned to debate an hour and a half. The Phoenix
Literary Society of William and Mary in 1872, on the other hand, lim-
ited the two to four debaters (the number varied according to the
desires and the persuasive powers of the president) to two speeches of
not less than three minutes but not more than fifteen minutes. With
presidential consent, the time could be extended to twenty minutes,
beyond which society consent was required for more extensive argu-
mentation. And the Philermenian Society of Brown, as late as June 12,
1858, ordered that the "Polemics shall speak only once, and only ten
minutes each, before the question is given to the society; afterwards no
member shall speak more than twice, or more than ten minutes at each
time, without the consent of the Society/7 26

Judging the Debate

Although there was no set pattern for judging the formal society
debates, most groups either provided for decisions by the president or
by a specially appointed critic or board of critics, as at the United Fra-
ternity as early as 1786 and the Linonian Society as late as 1878, or by
a majority vote of the society members, as at the Cliosophic Society in
1823.

In the eighteenth century, the customary basis for the presidential
or society decision was the validity or the merits of the question. Even
as late as 1830, the minutes of the Philolexian Society indicate that

248 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Columbia undergraduates were deciding debates according to the
merits of the question and not according to the arguments advanced.
Early in the nineteenth century, however, the societies began to pro-
vide for judging contestants according to their argumentative ability,
as at the Cliosophic Society in 1823 and the Philoclean Society in 1831.
By the middle of the nineteenth century, almost all the major societies
provided for decisions according to the merits of the debate. But a num-
ber of the older societies, like the Brothers in Unity as late as 1861 and
the Linonian Society in 1863, never broke entirely with the past and
required decisions on both the merits of the question and the merits
of the debate, the president determining the former, the society, the
latter.

Although most of the societies followed the final rebuttal with a deci-
sion and then went on to other business, several organizations provided
for a critical analysis of the debate and the debaters. In 1839, the Dia-
lectic Association called for the president to criticize the performance
of all speakers, while the American Whig Society, in 1848, stipulated
that "It shall be the duty of the Sub-Committee-to sum up the argu-
ments that have been advanced and decide the questions according to
their merits. If the Committee be not unanimous then shall the Speaker
decide between them stating his reasons; after which the decision of
the House shall be taken."27 And in 1875, the Cliosophic Society,
which, as early as 1823, allowed any member to offer Ms sentiments
on the debaters and the merits of the debate after the decision, wisely
provided for a critic appointed at the stated meeting whose sole duty
it was to give the HaH a "just and discriminating criticism upon the
merits or demerits of the performance as well as upon the manner of
its delivery/' Then, after the critique, both the original performance and
that of the critic were discussed by the brothers.28

Subjects Debated in the Colleges

Selecting the Topic

After the second decade of the nineteenth century, the majority of
undergraduate societies solved the difficult problem of selecting the
topic or topics for debate by providing for specially appointed com-
mittees which either reported to the president, who, in turn, selected
the topic from a list of topics previously prepared, as at Cliosophic in
1823, or reported directly to the society, as at Peithessophian in 1827.
Other societies, however, followed the pattern established by Phi Beta
Kappa of Harvard in 1785 and required the president to furnish the

THE LITERARY SOCIETY 249

topic, a practice retained by Philolexian as late as 1852. And several
societies experimented with regulations like those adopted by the
Philermenian brotherhood in 1794, repealed in 1798, and revived in
1812, which required that each member hand in two questions per term.
The questions were, in turn, studied by a committee whose member-
ship was constantly changing. Each committee then debated the ques-
tion it selected.

The topics that were debated were not confined by strictly observed
rules of censorship, as a rule, although the Philological Society of Penn-
sylvania in 1807 censored religious and political topics, the American
Whig Society in 1812 decried the introduction of atheistic and deistic
topics, and the Social Friends in 1834 and the Phoenix Society in 1872
warned against the use of religious subjects. In general, their minutes
indicate that when societies limited the area of debate, the limitations
were confined to the commonly accepted areas of the philosophical,
political, and literary, as at Cliosophic in 1823 and Peithessophian in
1827.

Topics Debated

Despite the restrictions of groups like the Philological Society, the
questions debated by the eighteenth-century societies often bore a start-
ling resemblance to the metaphysical and philosophical theses defended
by respondents at commencement and classroom syllogistics. Thus the
Spy Club disputants in the 1720's argued: "Whether the Souls of Brutes
are Immortal?" "Whether the happiness of Heaven will be progressive?"
and "Whether there be any Infallable Judge of Controversies." 29

As the passing century introduced pressing secular issues, the col-
legians, while retaining an interest in the philosophical and the reli-
gious, evinced an evergrowing concern over social and political as well
as student problems. The following topics debated, selected at random
from the records of the societies, indicate the widening range of
interest:

Phi Beta Kappa of William and Mary:

The Justice of African Slavery. February 27, 1779,
Whether an Agrarian Law is consistent with the Principles of a wise Re-
public. June 5, 1779.
Is Public or Private Education more advantageous. March 4, 1780.

Athenian Society of Rutgers:

That Motion is the original cause of Heat. March 27, 1782.

Whether the present Trade with the Enemy is disadvantageous to Amer-
ica in its present situation. July 24, 1782.

Whether [there is] advantage arising from the Study of the dead Lan-
guages. August 7, 1782.

250 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Linonian Society of Yale:

Whether Emigration from Europe to America would be beneficial to ye

Latter March 17, 1791.

Whether a sudden emancipation of slavery would be politic in the state

of Connecticut. June 19, 1794.

Brothers in Unity of Yale:

Whether women ought to be admitted to a share in civil government.

July 19, 1792.

Would a separation between the Northern and Southern States be pol-
itic April 1, 1796.

Cliosophic Society of Princeton:

Whether ought Jews and Deists be admitted to all privileges of Ameri-
can citizens. August 5, 1792.
Whether debating or composition be more improving. May 27, 1794.

The early decades of the nineteenth century saw the trend toward the
secular continue, with topics concerning national expansion, suffrage,
defense, slavery, representation, international relations, crime and pun-
ishment, national economy, and educational problems predominant.
Religious and "literary" topics were not, however, ignored, neither was
sex. And a new ingredient, humor, began to show itself.

Representative questions with the decision of the judge or judges,
whenever noted in the society records, follow:

Ought the U. States to take Possession of the Floridas? Philolexian Min-
utes (Columbia), November 7, 1819. Negative.

Ought the possession of property to be held indespensable to qualify a
voter? United Brothers Minutes (Brown), May 1, 1813. Affirmative.

Ought representatives to be guided, in their votes, by the will of their
constitutents? Cliosophic Minutes (Princeton), July 23, 1807. Affirma-
tive. Philomathean Minutes (Pennsylvania), November 9, 1814.
Negative.

Should the Slaves of the United States be emancipated? Clariosophic
Minutes (South Carolina), 1812. Affirmative.

Was the conduct of the Governors of Connecticut & Massachusetts jus-
tifiable in refusing to call out the militia at the request of the general
Government? Linonian Minutes (Yale), December 21, 1813. Nega-
tive.

Ought the regulations of Yale-College to be such, that students destined
to different professions, might have an opportunity to pursue differ-
ent courses of study. Linonian Minutes (Yale), June 7, 1810.

Is it probable that Russia will ever be able to destroy the balance of
power in Europe? Philolexian Minutes (Columbia), November 13,
1819. Affirmative.

Are capital punishments beneficial or detrimental to a nation? American

Whig Minutes (Princeton), February 15, 1813. Beneficial.
Whether it is just, & equitable, that old batchelors should be taxed for
the support of old maids? Philolexian Minutes (Columbia), June 13,
1817. Negative.

THE LITERARY SOCIETY 251

The period 1820 to 1840 found the societies stronger than ever and
rapidly multiplying in number. And as they solidified their hold on
campus extracurricular life, they confidently passed judgment on most
of the problems that faced their elders and on several that educators
and statesmen had passed by.

Slavery and secession, of course, continued to attract much attention,
particularly in light of the secessionist threats of South Carolina. Sur-
prisingly, the records of the Southern societies indicate that the col-
legians did not commit themselves wholeheartedly to the cause of
slavery, although one must remember that decisions were now being
given, in the main, according to the merits of the debating. The follow-
ing questions and decisions are representative:

Is enslavement of human beings justifiable? Phi Kappa Minutes

(Georgia), May 10, 1828. Negative.
If South Carolina should secede from the Union ought the Southern

states to assist her? Demosthenian Minutes (Georgia), September 18?

1830.

In general, although there were strong exceptions, the Northern and
Western societies voted against the position of the Southern states:

Is the holding of Slaves justifiable? American Whig Minutes (Prince-
ton), January 17, 1820. Affirmative.

Has a state the right to withdraw from the Union at pleasure? Linonian
Minutes (Yale), April 4, 1832. Negative.

Ought the government of the U.S. resort to force to secure the obedience
of S. Carolina? Philolexian Minutes (Columbia), December 14, 1832.
Affirmative.

Other national problems also occupied the attention of the under-
graduate debaters. Of particular importance was westward expansion,
now closely aligned with the spread of slavery. In general, the Southern
societies voted for expansion if it favored the position of the South. The
reaction of the rest of the collegians was mixed:

Should Missouri be admitted to the Union, without the abolition of
slavery? Cliosophic Minutes (Princeton), January 26, 1820. Negative.

Would a peaceable accession of the Canadas be beneficial to the United
States? Pbilomathean Minutes (Pennsylvania), March 29, 1820. Af-
firmative. Brothers in Unity Minutes (Yale), July 8, 1829. Negative.

Indian affairs, which previously had excited but little interest, now
furnished many debate topics, especially in the North:

Are not the insurrections of the Indians of our country justifiable on the
the same grounds which prompted the Fathers of our country to re-
volt from the British yoke? American Whig Minutes (Princeton),
November 5, 1832. Affirmative.

252 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Ought Georgia to extend jurisdiction over the Cherokee nation? Linonian
Minutes (Yale), February 8, 1832. Negative.

Suffrage also furnished many topics for debate— with a noticeable
but by no means overwhelming liberalization in attitude evinced by
the critics:

Ought the members of legislative bodies be required to possess a cer-
tain amount to Property. Euphradian Minutes (South Carolina),
March 1, 1834. Negative. Cliosophic Minutes (Princeton), Novem-
ber 30, 1825. Affirmative.

Ought the right of suffrage to be extended to citizens universally? Clio-
sophic Minutes (Princeton), June 6, 1832.

Education remained a popular subject. In the South, there was little
change in the wording of the questions or in the recorded attitudes. In
other parts of the country, however, there was an increasing scepticism
toward prevailing educational practices:

Is a classical education necessary to eminence in any profession?

Adelphic Minutes (Western Reserve), June 1, 1830. Negative.
Is the present system of College education calculated for entrance into

practical life? Philolexian Minutes (Columbia), March 28, 1834.

Negative.

As might be expected, sex was of some interest to disputants, espe-
cially in the South:

Should seduction be considered a capital crime? Cliosophic Minutes
(South Carolina), January 15, 1831. Negative.

... a man should be compelled by law to marry the victim of his seduc-
tion. Phi Kappa Minutes (Georgia), 1831. Affirmative.

International affairs still appealed to the society debaters, although
not to the extent as did national issues. The following were among the
many questions considered:

Have we any cause to fear the growing power of Russia? Cliosophic
Minutes (Princeton), August 23, 1820. Affirmative.

Would it he prudent and politic for the United States to form a treaty
offensive with the Republics of South America? Phi Kappa Minutes
(Georgia), February 8, 1826. Negative.

Although religion did not enter the debate lists as in former years,
except for the South, even the Northern and Western collegians were
vitally concerned with such "problems" as:

Is the increase of Catholicism in the United States, ominous of evil?

Adelphic Minutes (Western Reserve), October 13, 1820. Affirmative.
Which has been the most prejudicial to mankind— Popery or Infidelity?

Linonian Minutes (Yale), June 14, 1820. Popery.

THE LITERARY SOCIETY 253

And despite the predominance of the vital and the timely, the socie-
ties continued to debate such "old saws" as the execution of Mary of
Scotland and the relative military merits of Caesar and Hannibal.

During the period 1840 to I860, the Southern societies retained much
of their vigor. The younger Western societies continued to expand.
And even in the old Northern halls, where the exercises were often
cancelled because of the lack of preparation, debating remained the
primary exercise.

As in the previous decades, only the bounds of curiosity confined the
limits of the debate topics. There was, however, a slight change in the
frequency of the topics entertained. International affairs and foreign
policy edged out slavery and secession in many societies as the war
clouds threatened, and in the West education became increasingly
popular as a source for debate topics. It is interesting, also, to note that
many of the Southern societies abandoned the objectivity which marked
much of their previous argumentation concerning slavery. Partisanship
was generally the order after 1850 although some debaters (and some
of their elders) hoped for compromise.

An idea of the interests, attitudes, and widespread intellectual curios-
ity of the undergraduates may be obtained from the following random
listing of topics debated from 1840 to 1860:

Would a congress for international arbitration be desireable and prac-
ticable? PMermenian Minutes (Brown), April 19, 1851. Negative
11-5.

Would it be expedient for the U.S. to grant the petition of the Canadas
requesting admission into the Federal Union? Phi Delta Minutes
(Western Reserve), April 2, 1845. Negative.

Resolved that a dissolution of the Union would be beneficial to the
South. Licivyronian Minutes (William and Mary), October 26, 1844.

Should South Carolina take the lead in the Southern cause? Euphradian
Minutes (South Carolina), March 27, 1858. Affirmative.

Should Negroes be admitted to Yale College? Brothers in Unity Min-
utes (Yale), March 16, 1859.

Should a larger part of the college course be devoted to the study of the
English language and literature? Phi Delta Minutes (Western Re-
serve), February 26, 1859.

Resolved that the present method of spelling is preferable to the
Phonetic method. Young Ladies Literary Society Minutes (Oberlin),
May 5, 1852.

Ought the U.S. Gov. to suppress Mormonism by force? Dialectic Asso-
ciation Minutes (Oberlin), September 10, 1844.

Are laws prohibiting immigration in any case justifiable? Clariosophic
Minutes (South Carolina), January 29, 1842. Negative.

Is the tariff for manufacturing for the country's good? Erosophic Min-
utes (Alabama), May 31, 1845.

Resolved that the right of suffrage should be granted to females. Young
Ladies Association Minutes (Oberlin), October 9, 1850.

254 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Resolved-That the sale of ardent spirits ought to be prohibited by law.

United Brothers Minutes (Brown), September 30, 1854,
Is Masonry compatible with our free institutes? Phi Delta Minutes

(Western Reserve), December 23, 1840.

Although the Western societies continued to sponsor vigorous literary
sessions throughout the period 1860-1881, the older societies of the
South and the North were not so fortunate, and many expired during
the war or shortly thereafter. Largely responsible for their decline was
the rise of athletics, the popularity of the social fraternities, the compe-
tition of music clubs, dramatic clubs, and similar specialized organiza-
tions, the slow but gradual liberalization of the curriculum with a
consequent influx of non-forensic minded students, the spread of
the periodicals and other competing forms of communication, and the
loosening of administrative regulations which removed many of the
initial causes for the founding of the societies. But where the adminis-
trations were young and vigorous, as in the West, or where tradition
was hallowed, as at Princeton, the societies held their own. And where
the societies remained, forensics were featured.

In the South, immediately preceding the conflict, student attention,
as in the period 1840 to 1860, was largely centered about the problems
introduced by slavery and national policies with some attention paid to
sex and the ancient academic "saws." Once the war started, however,
there was relatively little time spent on vital issues. Escape topics fur-
nished most of the subjects for what debating was done. But once the
war ended, the awakening or surviving societies returned to a semblance
of their former concern over national and, to a lesser degree, interna-
tional affairs, and to heated discussions of the old "saws" which con-
tinued to appeal to the oratorically-minded Southern speaker.

Remaining records indicate that the Northern halls retained their
interest in affairs of state throughout the entire pre-war and war years,
although several societies with a large Southern membership, like
Cliosophic of Princeton, eschewed the discussing of embarrassing topics
until the war was almost over. For a time, the old ethical, literary, and
historical questions made a strong comeback, but toward the end of the
period they were greatly outnumbered by topics taken from the vital
and pertinent areas of national, local, and, to a lesser degree, interna-
tional affairs.

In the West, student interest in slavery and its resultant complica-
tions was sustained throughout the entire period. During the war, topics
drawn from governmental policies and the field of education were par-
ticularly popular. And after the war, the period of reconstruction stimu-
lated many debates on national policies. The problems concerning
expansion and international happenings also appealed to society men.

THE LITERARY SOCIETY 255

In general, we can conclude that Northern and Western debaters,
during the 18707s and the beginning of the 1880's, were primarily inter-
ested in national, local, and international policies in that order, with a
range of interest that compares very favorably with that displayed
today.

A sampling of the more popular topics debated by collegians through-
out the country follows:

Should the South secede if Lincoln is elected? Demosthenian Minutes
(Georgia), October 13, 1860.

Ought Pres. Johnson to be impeached for treason at the coining session
of Congress? Linonian Minutes (Yale), October 31, 1866. Euphra-
dian Minutes (South Carolina), February 23, 1867.

Resolved that a student should pursue his college course with refer-
ence to some profession. Dialectic Minutes (Oberlin), November 6,
1860.

Resolved that all studies should be made elective during Junior and
Senior years. Philolexian Minutes (Columbia), March 9, 1871. Af-
firmative.

Should education be made compulsory in Alabama? Eiosophic Min-
utes (Alabama), April, 1878.

Would a general congress of nations be expedient? Phi Delta Minutes
(Western Reserve), March 14, 1860. Affirmative.

Should the negro be permitted to vote for elective offices? Demosthenian
Minutes (Georgia), March 26, 1867.

Ought the United States to permit unlimited immigration? Brothers in
Unity Minutes (Yale), January 11, 1870.

Resolved that athletics are carried to excess in the prominent American
Colleges. Philolexian Minutes (Columbia), November 11, 1880.

Does art or nature contribute more to the beauty of the ladies of the
present day? Cliosophic Minutes (Princeton), November 9, 1866.

Is language of Divine Origin? Peithessophian Minutes (Rutgers), Feb-
ruary 4, 1870. Affirmative.

Resolved "that communism is a practical and desireable method of gov-
ernment." Phi Delta Minutes (Western Reserve), December 17, 1881.
Negative.

Ought public opinion be regarded as the standard of right? Clariosophic
Minutes (South Carolina), April 19, 1873.

Ought there to be any legislation in regard to strikes? Brothers in Unity
Minutes (Yale), July 6, 1864. Negative.

Ought our Railroads to be in the hands of the Government? Phi Kappa
Minutes (Georgia), March 16, 1869.

Ought the Young men of Alabama to seek their fortunes in other States?
Philomathic Minutes (Alabama), April 30, 1875.

The Little Republics

We have endeavored to trace the origin of the literary and debat-
ing societies and we have examined the scope and influence of their
major literary exercise, debating. From such a survey, we can readily

256 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

conclude with William Jennings Bryan that the societies were "an im-
portant factor in school life. . . ." 30 But to many college men of the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the societies were more than stu-
dent safety valves or substitutes for inadequate contemporary curricula.
They were, as to William H. Seward, by far the most important part
of the educational system,31 Although within the physical confines of
the colleges ancl, consequently, subject to college regulations, the socie-
ties were, in many respects, little republics, possessing a student-cen-
tered and a student-administrated discipline complete with awards and
punishments, carefully guarded rituals, specifically prescribed but easily
amended exercises, and, frequently, comfortable and even elaborate
quarters. For the Madisons, Websters, Calhouns, Choates, Evarts,
Stones, Wilsons, and their contemporaries, they furnished a climate of
opinion and a format for developing talents and personalities unequaled
by any other facet of college life or instruction— then or now.32

A perusal of college histories indicates that Jacob Beam's estimation
of the importance of the American Whig Society to its members during
the nineteenth century could be applied to most American literary
and debating societies during the eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries:

Throughout the century Whig stood to its members as something within the

physical limits of the College yet above it and transcending it Hence, we

hear with no surprise of the established principle that all collegiate exercises
are to be neglected before the exercises of this institution (1813) ; of the de-
bate decided, of course, in the affirmative "Are the exercises of this Hall of
more importance than the studies of the College?" (1821), and the settled
conviction many years later: "It is an acknowledged fact that the Hall train-
ing is as great a feature in the development of the intellectual life of the Col-
lege as any two departments of instruction" (1893).33

Founded to circumvent the social, literary, and forensic limitations
of the early American colleges, secret student clubs or societies closely
followed the founding of institutions of higher learning throughout the
country. Soon recognized by college administrations as valuable edu-
cational adjuncts and safety valves, the societies flourished throughout
the country until the middle of the nineteenth century. Then, especially
in the North, the rise of challenging extracurricular and social organi-
zations, the gradual liberalization of the curriculum, and the changing
complexion of the undergraduate body caused many of the old organi-
zations to lessen in influence and activity. In the South, the Civil War
weakened many colleges and, consequently, the college societies. After
the war, the societies never attained their earlier measure of popularity.
In the West, however, sponsored by strong administrative pressure, the
societies continued to grow in prestige until the end of the nineteenth

THE LITERARY SOCIETY 257

century, when, as in the North and South, intercollegiate debating tem-
porarily gave the old organizations new life.

During the period of their greatest influence, the societies initiated
many relatively new forms of debate and set up the framework for
academic debating as we know it today. More than that, they furnished
a place for college youth to try its literary, oratorical, and forensic wings
under the aegis of a closely knit social organization.

To students of education in general and of speech in particular, the
societies, through their records of topics debated and the methodologies
involved, offer an insight into the development of important contempo-
rary forms of debate and an understanding of the problems which
faced our ancestors. To some of us, they engender nostalgia.

Notes

1. In order to prevent these notes from assuming unwieldy proportions while
still retaining a primary function of indicating hard to find original sources, I have
omitted all references to the histories and catalogs of colleges mentioned in the text
except when material has been quoted. Also, I have eliminated references to the
sources of literary society records except in the case of several direct quotations.
The reader will notice that, whenever feasible, I have indicated the name of the so-
ciety and the exact date of the minutes or constitution consulted, so that the original
records, found for the most part in the libraries of the respective colleges, can be
traced with little difficulty.

I should like to acknowledge my indebtedness to Dr. Frank B. Davis, whose
"Literary Societies of Selected State Universities of the Lower South/' unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University, 1949, furnished the topics listed
under the headings cf the Clariosophic, Euphradian, Demosthenian, and Phi Kappa
societies; and to Dr. Donald BL Ecroyd, who supplied the data listed under the
headings of the Philomathic and Erosophic societies of Alabama.

2. Alexander Cowie, Educational Problems at Jale College in the Eighteenth
Century (New Haven, 1936), p. 6.

3. Thomas Clap, The Annals of Yale College (New Haven, 1766), p. 86. See
also John A, Kouwenhoven, "The New York Undergraduate 1830-50," Columbia
University Quarterly, XXXI (June, 1930), 93-103.

4. William C. Lane, "The Telltale, 1721,'* Publications of the Colonial Society
of Massachusetts, XXI, 227-228.

5. Julius H. Tuttle, "The Philomusarian Club," Publications of the Colonial
Society of Massachusetts, XVIII, 79-84.

6. Records of the Speaking Club, 177-1781, I, 31. (MS. in the Harvard
University Archives.)

7. The Original Phi Beta Kappa Minutes, pp. 29, 31.

8. Quoted in a letter written by Miss Lora Wheeler, Reference Librarian, Uni-
versity of Utah, dated November 10, 1950.

9. Robert M. Gatke, Chronicles of Williamette (Portland, 1943), p. 292.

10. See David Potter, Debating in the Colonial Chartered Colleges (New York)
1944, pp. 5-32, 128-130.

11. College Records, September 17, 1750-April 23, 1778, a Copy of College
Book No. 7, p. 93. (MS. in the Harvard University Archives.)

12. Yale University Fellowship Club Records, Nov. 6, 1766-Feb. 6, 1767, (MS.
in the Yale University Library.)

13. The Original Phi Beta Kappa Minutes, p. 22.

258 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

14. Records of the Lineman Society, 1768-1790. (MS. in the Yale University

15. Aaron Dutton (A dissertation of the manner of rendering the exercises of the
Linonian Society pleasing and useful, Orations and Dissertations of the Linonian
Society, 1772-1802, pp. 39-40. MS. in the Yale University Library) puts it nicely:
"Extempore disputation requires as much study as written composition, & perhaps
more . . . [But] very many, who dispute extempore, pay little or no attention to the
question, till they come into the society, & depend principally upon the arguments
& observations, which the occasion shall suggest."

On the other hand, some ideas of how much time at least one forensic disputant
spent on preparing his society parts can be had by noting the following entries in
John Barent Johnson's diary ("Diary kept by John Johnson, April 10th, 1788 &
Beginning of 1789." MS. in the Columbiana Section of the Columbia University
Library): , _ r

January 16, 1789. ". . . home 8 -Sat up very late in writing a Dispute tor

Columbia Col. Society."

January 26, 1789. " . . wrote part of a dispute for Theol. Society

January 27, 1789. ". . . stud Greek-~& wrote a little (Disp.) "

February 6, 1789. "Stud. Dispute for to-morrow."

16. Minutes of the Trustees of Columbia College, III, Part 2, 6 May 1828 to 4
December 1837, p. 1738 Typed MS. in Columbia University Library. See also
Catalogue of the Officers and Students of Brown University . . . 1829-30, p. 18.

17. E.g., Constitution of the American Whig Society, 1875, p 204. MS. in the
Princeton University Library.

18. "Friendly," or non-decision debates occurred at an even earlier date. For
example, Northwestern's Hinman Society and Chicago's Tri Kappa Society first met
in 1873.

19. Constitution of the American Whig Society, 1807. MS. in the Princeton Uni-
versity Library.

20. Constitution of the Brothers in Unity, 1783. MS. in the Yale University
Library.

21. Constitution & Laws of the United Fraternity, May 29, 1857. MS. in the
Dartmouth University Library.

22. Constitution of the Linonian Society, 1835, p. 11. MS. in the Yale Univer-
sity Library.

23. Secretary's book of the Dialectic Association, 1839-43. MS. in the Oberlin
College Library.

24. Philermenian Society Records, 1798-1801. MS. in the Brown University
Library.

25. Constitution of the Philolexian Society, 1820. MS. in the Columbiana,
Columbia University Library.

26. Constitution of the Philermenian Society ( 1794-1864). MS. in the Brown
University Library.

27. Constitution of the American Whig Society, 1848. MS. in the Princeton
University Library.

28. Constitution of the Cliosophic Society (circa 1875). MS. in the Princeton
University Library.

29. Lane, op. cit., pp. 229-230.

30. William Jennings Bryan and Mary Baird Bryan, The Memoirs of William
Jennings Bryan (Philadelphia, 1925), p. 59.

31. Autobiography of William H. Seward (New York, 1877), p. 25.

32. See Hugo E. Hellman, "The Influence of the Literary Society m the Making
of American Orators/' Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXVIII (February, 1942),
12-14; and Harry M. Williams, "Two Mid-Nineteenth Century Student Speeches,"
Speech Monographs, XVII (March, 1950), 75-77.

33. Jacob N. Beams, The American Whig Society of Princeton University
(Princeton, 1933), pp. 77-78.

Intercollegiate Debating

L. LEROY COWPERTHWAITE
A. CRAIG BAIRD

Intercollegiate debating is primarily an American institution. The
"firsfbf modern intercollegiate debates" occurred, according to Ralph
Curtis Ringwalt, when Yale met Harvard University at Cambridge,
January 14, 1892.1 "Intercollegiate debating," observed Ringwalt, "arose
in a natural reaction against the lax conditions of the literary societies
and against the lack of genuine interest in any form of public speaking
which for many years existed at Harvard and Yale, and, in fact, at
almost all Eastern Colleges." 2 Ringwalt, one of the most prominent
early writers to show an interest in college debating, recalls that around
1890 a group of young men who had had experience with interschool
debates among preparatory schools near Boston proposed that the
Harvard Union challenge other colleges to joint debates. The outcome
of this proposal Mr. Ringwalt recounts:

For two years these men were voted down with considetable ridicule. In
[the autumn of] 1891, however . . . Yale sent a challenge for a joint discus-
sion, and the opponents of the scheme in the Harvard Union having been
graduated or won over, the proposal was at once accepted. Representatives of
the two colleges met at Springfield and arranged for two debates, the first to
take place at Cambridge on January 14, 1892.

On this day, therefore, Harvard and Yale met on the platform in the first
of modern intercollegiate debates. The question was "Resolved, that a young
man casting his first ballot in 1892 should vote for the nominees of the
Democratic Party." Yale had the affirmative. The late ex-Governor William E.
Russell, of Massachusetts, acted as presiding officer. Though, in accordance
with the agreement, there were no judges, and, consequently, no formal de-
cision was given as to which side proved itself superior in the contest, the
meeting was very satisfactory; the audience was large, representative, and
enthusiastic, and the debating creditable.3

The news of these events soon reached other campuses, and within
four years intercollegiate debating had spread across the entire conti-

259

260 RHETOBIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

nent. The next year, 1893, the Whig and Cliosophic literary societies of
Princeton University journeyed to Yale for a debate. That same year,
according to the late Thomas C. Trueblood, the Middle West caught
the spirit, and Michigan and Wisconsin universities held their first
joint debate.4 Before the year was over Iowa and Minnesota partici-
pated in the first of a long and successful series of intercollegiate de-
bates through the medium of the Iowa-Minnesota Debate League,
organized at the conclusion of the first contest.5 During the 1894-1895
academic year Pennsylvania met Cornell and Stanford debated with
California. The following year, 1895-1896, Dartmouth, Bates College,
Williams College, Wesleyan University, Boston University, Western
Reserve, and the University of Chicago entered this new form of inter-
college rivalry.

The year J895 also brought an innovation in the structure of this new
intercollegiate activity when Princeton, Harvard, and Yale established
the first triangular debating league. In 1897, Michigan, Minnesota,
Northwestern, and Chicago universities formed the first quadrangular
league. "These universities/' wrote Trueblood, "debated each other in
"pairs in January, and tlje winners of the semi-finals contests came to-
gether in a final debate in April each year/* G This first Midwestern,
multilateral debate league, which served as a model for many others,
was at the end of eight years succeeded by a triangular arrangement
composed of the universities of Chicago, Michigan, and Northwestern,
the first of its kind to hold all debates simultaneously. According to
Professor R. I. Fulton, of Ohio Wesleyan University, the Ohio Inter-
collegiate Debate League was organized at Delaware on January 2,
1897, and included Ohio Wesleyan, Western Reserve, Oberlin, Ohio
State University. The first debates were held in May of that year.7

The next few years saw the rapid growth of debating in both num-
bers of institutions participating and the numbers of contests held.
Practically all the early debates were conducted on the basis of the
single debate "contract" arrangement, whereby one college challenged
another, the second accepted, and a contract setting forth the rules
and regulations of the contest was drawn up and signed by both parties.
Typical of the intercollegiate debating experiences of colleges and
universities during this early period were those of the State University
of Iowa, which, during her first decade (1893-1903) of intercollegiate
participation, took part in a total of eighteen annual contests with
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Chicago, and Illinois. All of Iowa's debates were
annual single events based on two-year "contracts."

Colleges evolved numerous rules and regulations governing the
arrangement of the contests ^Bdrthfeif conduct. Customarily the rules
specified the methods of selecting the question and the judges, the

INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATING 261

criteria for judging, number and length of speeches, provisions for
financing the debate, and the like.

The participants agreed on a proposition, the entertaining school or
the challenger usually submitting a proposal subject to objection by the
opposing school. The constitution of the first debating league formed
by Iowa and Minnesota at Minneapolis on May 27, 1893, for example,
provided that the entertaining university should submit the question,
the other school to have twelve days in which to choose the side it
desired or to submit a new question.8 Although universally practiced,
this method of choosing the question frequently provoked disagree-
ment and foul play. According to Egbert Ray Nichols, much wrangling
and disagreement over meanings of terms was the usual result.9 The
subjects debated reflected clearly the political, economic, and sociologi-
cal issues of the time. Questions most frequently debated during the
first decade of intercollegiate activity dealt with such subjects as gov-
ernment ownership and operation of the telegraph system, interna-
tional bimetallism, further territorial extension of the United States,
municipal ownership and operation of street railways, direct election
of United States senators, a federal graduated income tax, and com-
pulsory arbitration of labor-management disputes.

The manner of selecting speakers for a debate was left to each insti-
tution. At first the literary societies selected the debaters from among
their membership. Trueblood observed that by 1907 some institutions
chose their representatives "by a series of class contests, others through
departments, as at Yale and Illinois, others through debating societies
or unions, as at Harvard, Princeton, Cornell and Wisconsin, or through
both societies and departments, as at Michigan." 10 Still later, with the
advent of the debate "coach," the "tryout" system became the general
practice, with competition campus wide. The league constitutions and
single debate "contracts'* usually specified that contestants must be
undergraduates currently attending the university represented.

Since early intercollege contests were characterized by a spirit of
rivalry, the selection of judges became a matter of supreme importance.
As in the selection of the question, tEe lists of judges proposed by the
opposing team were almost always examined with suspicion. To secure
an unprejudiced "jury," league constitutions and contractual agree-
ments dwelt at some length on such matters as the manner of selecting
the judges, their essential qualifications, and criteria for rendering a
decision. It early became the practice for the entertaining college to
submit a list of names from which the visiting college selected two
judges; the latter submitted a second list from which the entertaining
institution chose one. Emphasis was placed on securing judges promi-
nent in their fields. During the early years some judges were among the

262 RHETOBIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

most prominent citizens of the country. State supreme court judges,
congressmen, and university professors were the most frequently
chosen. Lawyers, ministers, and college presidents were also included.
Sometimes an eminent judge or presiding officer proved to be a major
drawing card for the contest, as, for example, when ex-President
Grover Cleveland presided at one of the early debates between Yale
and Princeton.11

Closely allied to the problem of selecting competent judges was that
of deciding what criteria should govern decisions. Nichols reports that
"sometimes a basis of fifty percent was suggested for argument and the
same for delivery, sometimes it was sixty for argument and forty for
delivery, or even seventy-five and twenty-five." 12 The first agreement
between Iowa and Minnesota instructed the judges to decide the debate
"solely on argument." 13 However, the constitution later drawn up by
these two institutions directed that judges should decide "according to
the stipulations governing the debate." 14 Subsequent contests served
to establish that the framers of the Iowa-Minnesota League constitu-
tion meant that the judges were to award decisions on the merits of
the debating, not on the merits of the question.

Another problem frequently arising during the first decade of inter-
collegiate debating was that of determining the proper order and
length of speeches. Since the three-speaker team ( sometimes referred to
as the University Plan or Harvard Plan) was universally used through-
out the early period, the length of speeches was important. During some
of the early contests audiences often sat for as long as three hours
before the debate could be concluded and the judges' decision read.
Like many of the other rules for conducting the debates, those govern-
ing the length and order of speeches were usually stipulated in consti-
tutions and agreements. Usually each speaker was allowed twenty min-
utes for constructive argument and the "leader" of each three-man team
an additional ten minutes for summing up the arguments, with the
affirmative speaking last. Another variation allotted the first and second
speakers on each side twenty minutes; the third affirmative, twenty-two
minutes; the third negative, twenty-three minutes; and finally, the
affirmative a four-minute rejoinder. Still a third variation, used par-
ticularly in the Middle West, allowed affirmative speakers twenty,
twenty-two and twenty-five minutes, with a four-minute "rebuttal" to
close the debate. The three negative speakers had twenty, twenty-two
and twenty-six minutes. By about the turn of the century most colleges
had adopted the plan then in use among Eastern leagues of permitting
fifteen-minute constructive speeches and five-minute rebuttals for each
speaker. Nichols attributes to the Middle West the idea of placing the
negative first in the rebuttal speeches.15 Thus the first decade of inter-

INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATING

collegiate debating witnessed the evolution of the "rebuttal" speech ar
a debating format used in formal college debating for many years.

Little doubt exists that intercollegiate debating was accepted wi1
enthusiasm by both the participants and the audiences. The annual coi
test evoked wide public interest and a rousing display of school spiri
The general public and the average university student viewed the d<
bate as primarily a contest— an "intellectual sport" characterized t
rules and regulations and motivated by the desire for victory. Georg
Pierce Baker of Harvard perhaps best expressed the trend of the day i
an address before the Association of Colleges and Preparatory Schoo
of the Middle States and Maryland at Philadelphia, December 1, 190(

At first it is, more than anything else, the fight, the spirit of the contest, tt
desire to show one's supremacy over someone else which interest our studen
in debating. ... I believe that intercollegiate debating should be placed c
the footing of an intellectual sport.16

The keen rivalry engendered by an intercollegiate contest made it
great event of the school year. Indeed, preparation for the annual d(
bate greatly resembled that made for a modern athletic contest, to tt
point of arousing wide public interest through extensive advertising i
newspapers, on billboards, and even the staging of "pep" rallies fo
lowed by parades through the city streets. Audiences were frequentl
large enough to necessitate the renting of a local theater or the civi
opera house. When Iowa debated Wisconsin at Milwaukee on Marc
31, 1899, the reviews described Davidson's Theater as "overflowing wit
the crowd," composed in part of large delegations from nearby schoo]
and colleges.17 On the occasion of the Oberlin-Adelbert College (c
Western Reserve University) debate, on May 5, 1897 in the Eucli<
Avenue Congregational Church in Cleveland, about one hundred am
fifty Oberlin students and teachers travelled on a specially charterer
train to Cleveland to hear the debate.18

Colleges vied with one another to see who could make the occasio
of an intercollegiate debate the most memorable. Not infrequent!)
visiting debate teams found upon their arrival at the railway statio
special reception committees to escort them to the local hotel, wher
all arrangements for their stay had been made in advance. It was als
the custom, in addition to the regular banquet immediately followin
the debate, for the president of the college or university to entertai
both teams in his home. For the audiences, added attractions, such a
musical selections, frequently spiced the lengthy verbal battles. Th
Oberlin-Adelbert debate of 1897 was described by Auer as follows
"While the Mather Glee Club and the Adalbert Mandolin Club offere-

264 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

tive side of the question 'Resolved, That Trusts or Combinations which
tend to monopolize any industry should be prohibited by law.' " 19

To the literary societies must go the major credit for nurturing and
loyally supporting active intercollegiate debate programs. Through the
voluntary action of the societies intercollegiate debating got its start.
They planned and financed the early events. Through systematic pro-
grams of training begun with the Freshman society member, the socie-
ties prepared their speakers for intercollegiate competition. In addition
to providing varied opportunities for training in extemporaneous debat-
ing, the student organizations not infrequently hired at considerable
expense private instructors in elocution to assist their teams with deliv-
ery. Even special research teams were sometimes appointed to assist
the debaters in preparing their cases.

Although the literary societies shouldered most of the responsibili-
ties for the preparation of debating teams, more and more the debaters
themselves sought help among the faculty wherever and whenever they
could get it. Thus the professor of English, history, or economics volun-
tarily assumed a new responsibility. Although trained faculty supervi-
sion of the debating program was not the rule until well into the second
decade of intercollegiate competition, the "coaching system" began to
appear by the close of the first decade. A few institutions, notably the
universities of Michigan, Illinois, and Iowa, had by the turn of the cen-
tury organized "departments" of speech, but the departments had little
or nothing to do with intercollegiate debating, which existed purely as
an extracurricular activity. Not until well into the second decade of
intercollegiate debating did speech departments begin to assume re-
sponsibility for or jurisdiction over this popular "intellectual sport/'

In the period 1904-1913, intercollegiate .debating continued to ex-
pand rapidly and at the same time sought to improve itself.

Debating leagues increased in number and variety. With the Ghicago-
Michigan-Northwestern triangular experiment as a pattern, many new
leagues sprang up across the country. Typical was the "I-M-I League,"
composed of the universities of Iowa, Minnesota, and Illinois.

Quadrangular leagues were also to be found during this second
decade, that of Swarthmore, Franklin and Marshall, Dickinson, and
Pennsylvania State College being among the best known. When the
Chicago-Michigan-Minnesota-Northwestern league broke up in 1906,
Minnesota joined the universities of Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin and Ne-
braska to form the Central Debating League of America, popularly re-
ferred to as the "Five-Cornered/' "Quintangular," and "Pentangular"

INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATING 265

league. This new plan amounted to a double triangular arrangement,
in which, if the affirmative and negative teams each debated twice, each
member institution could meet the others annually. This fact was prob-
ably responsible for the immediate popularity of the five-member
leagues organized across the country. Typical of these pentangular
arrangements was the league composed of the universities of Arkansas,
Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Texas. The universities of
Georgia, Virginia, and North Carolina joined with Tulane and Vander-
bilt in a similar organization.

Also from the basic triangular plan emerged yet another type of de-
bating arrangement. The triangular league required each member insti-
tution to prepare teams on both sides of the question— a significant
departure from the old single-debate contract plan. Hence, when one
member of the league defaulted, the two remaining members, rather
than be deprived of debating opportunities for one of their teams,
simply matched these teams against one another on the same evening
as in the triangular arrangement. This "dual plan" survived all other,
more complex procedures.

Although the single-debate contract plan continued in use through
the second decade of intercollegiate debating, the various league ar-
rangements rapidly became popular, possibly because they effectively
solved such problems as the choice of a question and of sides, the time
and place of contests, and similar difficulties that had long been the
source of dispute and friction under the single-debate contract pro-
cedure. Nichols also alleges that those responsible for debating activi-
ties saw a boon to debate preparation in the league requirement that
each institution make ready teams on both sides of the question.20

The road of rapidly expanding intercollegiate debate activity was
not altogether smooth. One of the many difficulties was that of finance.
During the first decade, when intercollegiate activity was limited in
most universities and colleges to one or two engagements per year, the
literary societies managed to meet expenses from their regular treas-
uries, supplemented frequently by small admission charges to the de-
bates. Increased activity, however, required additional funds. Since
debate was definitely outside the regular curriculum, appeals to ad-
ministrative authorities for assistance were usually without success. In
search of supplementary sources of revenue, literary societies spon-
sored university lecture series, plays, and musical concerts. For many
groujps, debating was financed through the student activity fee, devised
early in the century, which the student, upon matriculating, paid in a
lump sum for his admission to athletic events, plays, and debates, and
for his subscription to the college paper. If only partial and sometimes
transitory, these "solutions" to financial problems opened the way for

266 RHETOBIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

even larger debate schedules and also made possible later the "guar-
antee" to the visiting team with the advent of the debate trip.

Perhaps the chief characteristic of the second decade was a con-
certed effort to improve the quality of intercollegiate debating. In large
measure, improvement manifested itself in four areas: (1) the struggle
for academic recognition, (2) development of improved methods of
debate preparation and delivery, (3) the devising of means for re-
warding proficiency in the art of debating, and (4) the administration
of the intercollegiate forensic program.

By the second decade, student debate leaders were successful in
their efforts to persuade a member of the faculty to assume the extra
duty of "coaching" intercollegiate teams in the final stages of their prep-
aration for debate contests.21 The next stage of the evolutionary process
found the "coach" assisting in the selection of the debaters by the
"tryout" system. Soon there appeared on every campus that relatively
small group of ardent debaters referred to as the "debate squad." With
the rapid increase in the number of annual intercollegiate contests came
what seemed the inevitable student demand for academic credit. As a
result, many "coaches" organized courses in argumentation and debate;
the intercollegiate participant enrolled and thus received credit. A few
institutions allowed credit specifically for intercollegiate participation
by a vote of the faculty upon recommendation of the "coach." Thus,
although intercollegiate debating continued to be thought of as an "out-
side" activity, in the second decade it gained curriculum status.

In keeping with academic associations, the best debates received
publication and were thus available for study and criticism. In 1908
Harvard and the University of Chicago published full-length debates
in pamphlet form. That same year the H. W. Wilson Company of Min-
neapolis started the Debate Handbook Series, followed a few years
later by the University Debater's Annual and the Reference Shelf series.
In 1909 Professor Paul M. Pearson, editor of The Speaker, compiled and
edited the first volume of Intercollegiate Debates, consisting of a con-
densation of the arguments of twenty-three college debates and of one
debate carried in full. In 1911, Brooldngs and Ringwalf s Briefs for De-
bate appeared.

Ffhe advent of the faculty director or "coach" brought decided im-
provement in methods of preparation and delivery. Many of the earliest
intercollegiate contests had little of the extemporaneous adaptation char-
acteristic of debate in later years. The general practice was for each
speaker to write his speech in full, commit it to memory, and, at the
proper time, recite it much as he would an oration. Not infrequently
the cases of opposing teams failed to "clash^pnd the result was, accord-
ing to Nichols, "an exhibition of adroit maneuvering, clever interpreta-

INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATING 267

tion, and carefully planned strategy to avoid pitfalls and to force the
opposition to defend its weaknesses and to meet the strong point of its
antagonists." 22 Even the rebuttal speeches were "canned." To correct
these defects, the coaches instituted what came to be popularly known
as the "block system" of speech preparation. With this method, all de-
baters, except the first affirmative speakers, were directed to prepare
paragraphs or "blocks" of arguments on all the conceivably important
issues that might arise during a debate. By committing these "blocks"
to memory, the debater could, during the course of the debate, select
and assemble such "blocks" as would result in a direct challenge to the
opponents' case. Blocked rebuttal answers were likewise prepared in
advance. Before long, however, the tediousness of the block method led
both coaches and students to move further in the direction of extempo-
raneous debating. Progress was manifest during the second decade,
when debaters began allotting time for preliminary extempore refuta-
tion at the beginning of constructive speeches. Some coaches directed
the first two speakers on each side to present the prepared constructive
case, leaving the third speaker free to extemporize and thus try to
insure a direct clash of arguments.

Another factor leading to the improvement of debating was the inter-
est shown by colleges, and especially by university extension divisions,
in high-school debating and debaters. Seeing the high schools as an
excellent source of college debaters, many colleges and universities en-
couraged the formation of high-school debate leagues. The leagues were
later amalgamated into state-wide organizations. Local, district, and
finally state debate championships were determined under the auspices
of the sponsoring university. Thus, during the second decade of inter-
collegiate debating, students who had received debate training in high
school began to enter the ranks of the college debate squads.

As a further inducement to better debating, many institutions early
adopted the practice of awarding cash prizes, cups, and plaques for
individual achievement. Some colleges instituted "presentation day" at
the end of the debating season. On this occasion, debaters received
medals and a college letter to be worn on the coat or sweater.

Another form of recognition for excellence in intercollegiate f orensics
which had its roots in this early period was the forensic honor society.
Desiring to give appropriate recognition for work of merit in inter-
collegiate debating, Professors E. E. McDermott, of the University of
Wisconsin, and H. E. Gordon, of the State University of Iowa, proposed
in November, 1904, a national forensic honor society patterned in the
Phi Beta Kappa tradition. In April, 1906, representatives from the uni-
versities of Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin,
Chicago, and Northwestern met at the Victoria Hotel in Chicago and

268 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

organized Delta Sigma Rho, the first honor society of its kind in the
United States. Provisions were made to establish chapters in each of
the member schools with charter membership limited to those institu-
tions represented at the founders' meeting. By the close of the decade,
Delta Sigma Rho could boast twenty-five chapters limited mainly to the
large universities.23 In 1908 a second national forensic honor society,
Tau Kappa Alpha, was organized at Butler College, Indianapolis, by
representatives of Butler, Wabash, and Depauw. Organized at first on
the basis of state chapters to which forensic honor students of the vari-
ous colleges within each state might belong, Tau Kappa Alpha later
reorganized to permit a local chapter in each college. By the end of the
decade the third honor society, Pi Kappa Delta, was founded. Accord-
ing to Professor Nichols, one of its founders, it met the demand of the
small colleges for an honor award and organization.24 Election to mem-
bership in one of these forensic honor societies, which carried with it
the privilege of wearing the society key, became the highest honor that
could be conferred upon an intercollegiate debater.

Although the early intercollegiate debates were held under the names
of institutions, they were not in reality contests between universities or
colleges. Actually they were conceived, planned, and carried out by
and among the various literary societies on the campuses. However, as
the responsibilities for administering an ever-expanding intercollegiate
program reached proportions too great for the societies independently
or collectively to handle, administration was gradually shifted to a cen-
tral agency representative of the institution as a whole. Hence, the sec-
ond decade witnessed the rise of the university or college Forensic
Association or Debate Council, which, in conjunction with the "coach,"
assumed the responsibilities of administering all intercollegiate debate
activities. Intercollegiate debating was then no longer restricted to
literary society members; any undergraduate in good standing was
eligible to participate as a representative of the university or college.
The "tryout" system further broadened the field of selection, thus sharp-
ening the competition for a place on the Varsity" team and improving
the general quality of debating,

III

The Jthird decadet of intercollegiate debating in the United States
(1914-1923) was a period at fur ther growth, and expansion character-
izecpby e^emaentati.on with new forms and methods^. Although tem-
porarily retarded by *We*H War 1, the general tr6fiS in intercollegiate
debating pointed toward increased activity, culminating in a program

INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATING 269

whose magnitude and substance reflected the far-reaching effects of
forensic endeavor on both the national and international scene.

Influenced perhaps in part by a desire to meet debate teams from
more distant places and by the urge to use a laboriously prepared de-
bate case in more than one or two debates, coaches and debaters were
not content with the two or three annual contests provided by league
arrangements. The interstate character of some of the triangular and
other multilateral leagues had already introduced the idea of a "debate
trip." The University of Denver was the first institution to schedule
more than one debate on a trip into neighboring states. In 1913 a
Denver team journeyed to Kansas and debated Ottawa University on
April 16, and to Missouri for an engagement with William Jewell Col-
lege on April 18. 25 Almost immediately other colleges and universities
began sending teams on cross country tours until by 1916 the debate
trip had become a popular feature.

World War I drastically curtailed intercollegiate debating. Men's
literary societies suspended activities, and in the 1917-1918 academic
year, college debating, along with most extracurricular pursuits, vir-
tually ceased.

Postwar intercollegiate debating assumed a new dimension when, in
1921, debaters of Bates College, Lewiston, Maine, gained national at-
tention by conceiving and carrying out the first international debate, a
trip to Oxford University, England.26 The debate took place before the
Oxford Union on June 16, 1921, with the Bates College team uphold-
ing the aflBrmative of the proposition, "Resolved, that this House ap-
proves the American policy of non-intervention in European affairs." 27
The following year, 1922, Oxford reciprocated by sending a team to the
United States for a return engagement with Bates College and for addi-
tional debates with Swarthmore, Columbia, Yale, Harvard, Princeton,
and the University of Pennsylvania.

The third decade of intercollegiate debating witnessed expansion in
another direction when women were admitted to the platform. In Jan-
uary, 1897, the University of Wisconsin, in reply to a challenge from
the University of Iowa, had refused to permit her young ladies to par-
ticipate in an intercollegiate debate, giving as her reason that ". . . ladies
in that capacity do no credit either to themselves or to co-education in
general." 28 Throughout the early years of intercollegiate forensic com-
petition the appearance of women upon the public platform continued
to be viewed with disfavor.

Women's societies began in earnest to promote debating activities at
about the beginning of the third decade of intercollegiate forensics.
Not until the postwar period, however, did appreciable numbers of

270 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

women debaters actually appear on the intercollegiate platform. On
May 12, 1921, purportedly the first women's intercollegiate debate in
the Middle West occurred when a women's team from the University of
Indiana visited the campus of the State University of Iowa to debate
the issue of Philippine independence.29 By 1923 college women, par-
ticularly in the Midwest, were debating along with men.

College debating was not without its critics. As early as 1913 debate
and debating practices as they had developed in the colleges and uni-
versities over the previous twenty years became the object of wide-
spread criticism from the public at large and from academic circles as
well. Public criticism, led by persons no less prominent than Theodore
Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan, questioned the moral sound-
ness of coaching methods, then prevalent, of requiring college debaters
to argue on both sides of a question without regard for their personal
convictions.30 Although the friends and defenders of college debating
managed to withstand public censure, academic criticism led to
changes. Educators centered on what many of them thought to be an
unhealthy stress upon winning the judges' decisions. Widespread dis-
satisfaction was expressed also over the choice of judges and judging
methods.

The first noticeable reaction in debating circles to criticism of judged
debates was the complete abolition of the decision. According to H. S.
Woodward, the first non-decision debates were held in Ohio in 1914-
1915. 31 Later a further innovation was added to the "judgeless" debate
when members of the audience were invited to express opinions on the
issue under discussion at the close of the formal debate. Thus was born
the "open forum discussion."

Directors of debating argued heatedly on the issue of decision versus
non-decision debates. According to Enid Miller, this argument and the
dispute over methods of judging occupied more space than any other
questions in the literature of speech education immediately following
World War L32 Early issues of the Quarterly Journal of Public Speak-
ing carried numerous articles, most notable of which was a series of
written debates between Professor H. N. Wells of the University of
Southern California Law School and Professor James M. O'Neill of the
University of Wisconsin Department of Speech.33

By the spring of 1920 the popularity of open forum, non-decision de-
bating had spread through the Middle West. Many of the debate
leagues adopted this system, among them the 1-M-I League," all of
whose debates during the 1920-1921 season were of the "judgeless,"
audience-participation type. Renewed debate contracts often specified
the use of the non-decision method. Although this new emphasis on
decisionless debating continued to be popular through the remainder

INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATING 271

of the third decade, the issue of decision versus non-decision debates
was by no means resolved, as later developments reveal.34

Although the open forum debate proved to be popular with au-
diences, many debaters and debate directors believed that the judges'
decision was essential to effective debating. To them the logical alterna-
tive to the old three-judge panel with its admitted evils was the expert
critic judge. First used in the high-school debating leagues of Kansas
and Iowa in 1915-1916, the critic judge quickly found favor. He was
an "expert" in debate technique and methodology; at the close of de-
bate he announced which team had done the more effective debating
and went on to explain in a short critique the reasons for his decision.
The critic judge was usually a director of debate or teacher of public
speaking from a neutral or disinterested institution.35

As the pendulum had swung in the two years following World War I
from decision to non-decision debating, by the 1922-1923 debating
season it had swung back again in the direction of contest debating
wittj-Jthe expert critic judge as referee. Thus, after nearly three decades
marke3"*witri controversies as to the eligibility, even the integrity, of
judges, and with the virtual elimination of judges' decisions, most of
the advocates of intercollegiate debating, in the Middle West at any
rate, finally settled upon the critic judge as the best solution to their
problems. Despite the competitive motive, which emerged repeatedly
in the intercollegiate debate program, the critic judge worked well and
won the confidence of coaches and debaters for fair and equitable deci-
sions. Furthermore, from his explanation and criticism, everyone could
profit. He fitted into a system that was more interested in education
than in sport.

In the last years of the third decade, American debaters were
influe1ice3r""t)y the* English style of debating. Characterized by its
conversaffdnal mode, wittiness, and its stress upon audience persua-
sion, the"Oxford, or British, style of debating had a significant and pro-
found" effect jja tempering the legalistic formalism of American debat-
ing^-6-Also the Oxford "split team" system— each team of two members
made up of one debater from each of the participating institutions—
probably helped to minimize the "sport" aspect of American debating
sometimes evident in a "support the home team" attitude among audi-
ences. The British debaters, stressing the importance of audience per-
suasion and unfamiliar with the American custom of awarding a deci-
sion on the merits of the debating, usually requested that audiences be
permitted to vote on the merits of the question instead. Hence, the close
of the third decade of intercollegiate debating saw the appearance of
the "audience decision" debate. In some instances, audiences were
asked to vote on the question both before and after the formal debate

272 KHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

with a "shift-of -opinion" ballot replacing the judge's formal decision.
Thus, by the end of the third decade intercollegiate debating had
taken on a new character and vitality. The dormant position into which
debating had slumped during World War I gave place to renewed
interest, both on the part of debaters and the general public. Audience
participation, while not generally thought to be a prime motive for
increased student interest, nevertheless materially transformed tradi-
tional debating from an intellectual sport characterized by a legalistic
formalism designed to win victories over opponents, to a more realistic
means of presenting live issues to interested listeners and of helping
college youth to speak well.

By 1923 college debating had seen most of its major developments.
In conclusion we need only to observe now that the forces which estab-
lished intercollegiate debate have been vigorous enough to keep it in
good health. International debating continued to expand. New adapta-
tions were introduced— cross-examination, direct-clash, and heckling
debates— and radio enabled the debater to reach larger audiences* »The
most important new direction was the debate tournament, which al-
loWecI debaters to meet several colleges at one location with minimum
expense. "Colleges experimented also with legislative assemblies as a
realistic setting for the student speaker. Although audiences have
dwindled since the early years, debate has adjusted its methods to
appeal to young men and women who are interested in broad and
rigorous educational experience, who find pleasure in intellectual com-
petition with their peers, and who wish to develop some facility in the
adaptation of facts and arguments on public questions to the occasion
and audience.

The immediate success and popularity enjoyed by the first debates
with British teams soon led to the sponsorship of international debating
by the Institute of International Education, which assumed the respon-
sibility for arranging tours both in the United States and abroad. Teams
from Oxford, Cambridge, and many municipal universities alternated
in making annual pilgrimages to the United States. Beginning in the
1920's, debate teams from Australia, Ireland, Turkey, Germany, and
the Philippine Islands appeared on American platforms. Not to be out-
done by their foreign competitors, American debaters traveled abroad
in ever increasing numbers. In 1927, the University of Oregon sent a
team on a tour westward around the world, visiting Hawaii, Australia,
India, and England en route. The following spring the Bates College
debaters traveled westward across the continent and on around the

INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATING 273

world. The next year a State University of Iowa team made a two
weeks7 tour of eighteen British colleges and universities. Except for a
temporary interruption by World War II, international debating con-
tinued to flourish under the administrative responsibility of the Inter-
national Institute of Education, with the Committee on International
Debate of the Speech Association of America acting as a liaison agency
for the selection of debaters on a nation-wide basis to represent Ameri-
can colleges and universities abroad. Although considerable contro-
versy developed concerning the educational justification of these ex-
change debates, few would argue that international debating failed
to live up to the function envisioned by its sponsors, namely, that of
fostering international good will and understanding.37

With the widespread use of the radio came further opportunity for
the expansion and development of college debating. At first, those insti-
tutions fortunate enough to be near commercial broadcasting stations
experimented with educational programs, among which were frequent
college debates. Within a few years many of the larger institutions had
their own broadcasting stations through which numerous intercollegiate
debates were "aired." Perhaps the outstanding radio debate of the
early period occurred when Iowa, the Western Conference League
"champion" of 1932-1933, met Bates College, Eastern Intercollegiate
League winners, on October 28, 1933. The debate was broadcast over
the WJZ chain of the National Broadcasting Company, with the Iowa
debaters speaking from a Chicago studio and the Bates team from a
Boston station. With the rapid growth in the number of educational
broadcasting units on college and university campuses, more and more
debates were arranged for broadcasting. The influence exerted by this
important medium upon the general quality and nature of debating
would be difficult to assess. The presence of an unseen audience repre-
senting a cross section of the population necessitated more concen-
trated training in adapting to listeners' needs and interests as well as
in improved techniques of delivery.

Mounting dissatisfaction among debate directors with the traditional
form of college debating led to further experimentation with new forms
and methods. Non-decision and open forum debating accompanied by
the use of the "shift-of-opinion" ballot became increasingly popular.
The "split-team" procedure to direct attention to the issues rather than
to the speakers was also widely employed. Among the most frequently
used of the new forms was the "Oregon Plan/' which featured cross-
examination of each speaker by a member of the opposing team at the
close of each constructive speech.38 Still another innovation was the
"direct clash" method, which called for the thorough threshing out of
each major issue in the debate by both sides before proceeding to the

274 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

next. Quite popular for a time was the "heckling" debate, which, as its
title implies, was designed to discourage memorized speeches by per-
mitting a debater to be interrupted for questioning by an opponent. All
of these innovations were designed to encourage an extemporaneous
style of debating.

Probably the most significant of the later developments in intercol-
legiate debating was the inauguration of the debate tournament, which
allegedly originated in 1923 at Southwestern College, Winfield, Kan-
sas.39 This new method of conducting intercollegiate debates called for
the converging of several debate teams upon one college or university
campus for a period of one or more days. It achieved almost immediate
popularity. The earliest tournaments were of the "invitational" type, in
which a particular college, upon deciding to sponsor such an event,
invited a number of other schools to send participants and usually
judges as well. The first national tournament, according to Nichols, was
sponsored by Pi Kappa Delta at its national convention in Estes Park,
Colorado, in 1926.40 Soon the tournament idea spread over the West
and Middle West and then over the nation.

Besides greatly enhancing opportunities for increased numbers of
intercollegiate debates at minimum expense, the tournament brought
significant changes in debating methods and techniques— changes that
largely determined the character and scope of college debating. In
order to hold several "rounds" of debate in one or two days, the length
of speeches was reduced to ten minutes for constructive and five min-
utes for rebuttal speeches. Although early tournaments made use of the
traditional three-speaker team, tournament efficiency was in large
measure responsible for the advent of the two-speaker system. With the
national tournament came the necessity for selecting a national debate
question. Finally, the tournament brought a renewed emphasis on
contest debating, even though many non-decision or "practice" tourna-
ments were held. Tournament debating also meant speaking almost
entirely without popular audiences, indeed, the real audience was often
the critic judge.

Yet another highly significant trend in modern debating practice was
the emergence of parliamentary debating carried out as a student legis-
lative assembly.41 In invitational forensic conferences across the land
students proposed resolutions and "bills," discussed them in committee
and conferences, and emerged from the final stages of a "discussion pro-
gression" with a series of resolutions introduced in the form of bills and
debated by the entire assembly sitting as a legislature. Sponsors of these
legislative sessions held that in addition to providing excellent oppor-
tunities for training in extemporaneous, problem-solving debating, they
served also to increase student interest in social-political problems, to

INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATING 275

equip them further for the responsibilities of leadership in civic affairs,
and to show relationships between discussion and advocacy in the
deliberative process.

Although the competitive elements continued to evoke enthusiasm
among superior debaters, the tendency of colleges and universities was
to relate forensics more and more closely to general educational aims
and classroom instruction. The educational values of the forensic pro-
gram for the functions and purposes of a democratic society were rec-
ognized as playing an indispensable role in the struggle for survival. If
free speech, basic to the American system, is to serve democracy
properly, discussion and debate will continue as essential educational
disciplines.

Notes

1. Ralph Curtis Ringwalt, "Intercollegiate Debating," Forum, XXII (January,
1897), 633.

According to Ewbank and Auer, "the first intercollegiate debate seems to have
taken place in 1883 between Knox College and the Rockford Female Seminary on
the 'Social benefits and evils of the lavish expenditure of wealth by the rich/ "—
Henry Lee Ewbank and J. Jeffery Auer, Discussion and Debate: Tools of a Democ-
racy (New York, 1951), p. 383.

2. Ringwalt, op. cit., p. 633.

3. Ibid.

4. "Forensic Training in Colleges," Education, XXVII (March, 1907), 387.

5. Vidette-Reporter (Iowa City), June 3, 1893.

6. Trueblood, op. cit., p. 387.

7. Roy Diem, "History of Intercollegiate Debating in Ohio," Central States
Speech Journal, XX (November, 1949), 633.

8. Vidette-Reporter (Iowa City), November 16, 1893.

9. "The college submitting the question often cast it in trick form, hoping the
challenged debaters would choose before discovering any jokers or technical flaws
in the statement."— Egbert Ray Nichols, "A Historical Sketch of Intercollegiate
Debating: I/' Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXII (April, 1936), 218.

10. Trueblood, op. cit., p. 387.

11. Ibid., p. 390.

12. Nichols, op. cit., p. 218.

13. Vidette-Reporter (Iowa City), April 15, 1893.

14. Vidette-Reporter (Iowa City), November 16, 1893.

15. Nichols, op. cit., p. 217.

16. "Intercollegiate Debating," Educational Review, XXI (March, 1901), 245.

17. Daily lowan (Iowa City), April 1, 1899.

18. J. Jeffery Auer, "Debate Goes to Town," Oberlin Alumni Magazine, XXXV
(May, 1939), 8.

19. Ibid.

20. Egbert Ray Nichols, "A Historical Sketch of Intercollegiate Debating: II,"
QJS, XXII (December, 1936), 591.

21. Coaching had become so general by 1915 that Professor Frank H. Lane of
the University of Pittsburgh felt moved to contribute an article for the first issue of
the Quarterly Journal of Public Speaking asking just how far the faculty member
should go in aiding the student debater. 'Faculty Help in Intercollegiate Contests,"
Quarterly Journal of Public Speaking, I (April, 1915), 9-16.

22. Ibid., pp. 595-596.

276 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

23. For a detailed account of the history of Delta Sigma RIio see The National
Society of Delta Sigma Rho; History, Constitution, General Regulations (rev. to
1949).

24. The Forensic (March, 1923).

25. Intercollegiate Debates, IV, 429.

26. Editor's Note: Professor A. Craig Baird, co-author of this article, as director
of forensics at Bates College in 1921, was responsible for this first international
debate.

27. For a detailed account of this first international debate see The Gavel of
Delta Sigma Rho, IV (October, 1921), 6.

28. Vidette-Reporter Iowa City), January 14, 1897.

29. Iowa Alumnus (Iowa City), XVIII (May, 1921), 252.

30. For a review of earlier Roosevelt and Bryan criticisms see F. G. Moore's
"Where Men Debate Beliefs Not Statistics," The Outlook, CXXXII (1922), 55-56.

31. H. S. Woodward, "Debating Without Judges/' QJPS, I (October, 1915),
229-233.

32. "Development of Intercollegiate Debating in the United States, Including a
Specific Study in Northwestern and Chicago Universities," unpublished M.A. thesis,
Northwestern, 1926.

33. For a summary of the Wells-O'Neill discussion see H. N. Wells and J. M.
O'Neill, "Judging Debates," Quarterly Journal of Speech Education, IV (January,
1918) ,76-92.

34. For a discussion of open forum, decisionless debating as practiced through-
out the Middle West during the period immediately following World War I see
"The Decisionless Debate with the Open Forum," QJSE, VII (June, 1921), 279-291.

35. For a review of the arguments advanced in favor of the "expert critic judge"
method by its chief advocate, see L. R. Sarett, "The Expert Judge of Debate,"
QJPS, III (April, 1917), 135-139.

36. For an analysis and comparison of the American and British styles of de-
bating see A. Craig Baird, "Shall American Universities Adopt the British System
of Debating?" QJSE, IX (June, 1923), 215-222.

37. For a discussion of the educational values of international debating see A.
Craig Baird, "How Can We Improve International Debating?" QJS, XXXIV (April,
1948), 228-230.

38. For a detailed explanation of the "Oregon Plan" by its founder see J. S.
Gray, "The Oregon JPlan of Debating," QJSE, XII (April, 1926), 175-180.

39. F. B. Ross, "A New Departure in Forensics," The Forensic of Pi Kappa
Delta (November, 1923).

40. Nichols, op. cit., p. 272.

41. Syracuse University, according to Nichols, first used this technique during
the 1933-1934 season. Soon thereafter Pi Kappa Delta began sponsoring a student
legislative assembly as a regular feature of its national conventions.— Nichols, op.
cit., pp. 277-278.

In file spring of 1939 Delta Sigma Rho staged in Washington, D. C,3 the first
of a continuing series of national student congresses, held biennially.

Speech Education in
Nineteenth-Century Schools

GLADYS L. BORCHERS
LILLIAN R. WAGNER

The history of education during the nineteenth century in the United
States presents an interesting story of changing philosophies and meth-
ods which in many respects seems to reflect European patterns of edu-
cation. Thejiin^teenth centoy^witnessed the rise of the public school
systeH^as-we-iiiQw^it today, but neither its development nor the part
played in it by speech education can be understood without a glance
at_Amjpjican education prior to 1800.

Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries

New Englanders, who from the seventeenth through the nineteenth
centuries led the country in most educational innovations and improve-
ments, had a deep respect and zeal for learning as a "bulwark of Church
and State." Hence they confronted the problem of establishing a sys-
tem of education which would perpetuate their faith both by training
young men for the ministry and by educating all children for member-
ship in a sect. The colonists set up an educational system typically
British; it consisted of some training in religion and reading by the par-
ents or the apprentice-master (later "by a town school master), a Latin
grammar-school in larger places, and an English-type college to prepare
students for the ministry. "As in England also, the system was voluntary,
the deep religious interest which had brought the congregation to Amer-
ica being depended upon to insure all the necessary education and reli-
gious training." 1

The famous Massa^usetts Laws of 1642 and 1647 are considered
basic to the foundation of our national system. The first merely required
the councilman to check from time to time to see if the children were
being taught to "read and understand the principles of religion and the

277

278 BHETOKIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

capital laws of the country." The second, based upon German and
Dutch precedent rather than upon English, made the building of
schools mandatory. Accordingly, Massachusetts soon had elementary
schools for all its children and secondary schools in larger towns. Other
New England states soon followed this example. George Martin, late
nineteenth-century historian, says that the ideal was neither paterna-
listic nor socialistic:

The child is to be educated, not to advance his personal interest, but because
the State will suffer if he is not educated. The State does not provide schools
to relieve the parent, nor because it can educate better than the parent can,
but because it can thereby enforce the obligation it imposes.2

Elsewhere the American pattern varied. TheJ^ddle_Adantic states
favored the parochial type of school and later offered more opposition
to the establishment of the public school system. In the South, the
wealthy were largely instructed by private tutor and then sent to Eng-
land for their college years while the poor received their only instruc-
tion at home or in charity schools. Cubberley states that "classes in so-
ciety and negro slavery made common schools impossible, and the lack
of city life and manufacturing made them seem largely unnecessary." 3

During the Revolutionary period most grammar schools, academies,
and colleges were closed or were kept open only intermittently. Not
until the 1820's do we find any appreciable consciousness of education.
Horace Mann accounted for the hiatus by noting that the talents of our
most able men had been engrossed in the details of our struggle for
existence and the problems of setting up a new government without
precedence in the world.4 Furthermore, an agricultural society was far
more concerned with survival than with education or leisure. After the
War of 1812 Americans began to think of themselves as a definite, dy-
namic, democratic nation and to take cognizance of the value of educa-
tion. In this respect, however, neither the people nor the states were as
farsighted as the federal government had been. The Land Ordinance
of 1785 and later Congressional acts had given 80,000,000 acres of land
to the public schools; yet even in the early decades of the nineteenth-
century education was left largely in the hands of the church or of
private individuals. Any new interest in education led to the establish-
ment of academies and colleges rather than of schools for the general
public.

Educational Importations During the Nineteenth Century

Although contemporary educational thinking in Europe had been
affected by the philosophies of Rousseau, Locke, Pestalozzi, and others,
the only American importations during 1800-1820 were those concerned

NINETEENTH-CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 279

with the inexpensive expansion of educational opportunities rather
than with the improvement of teaching methods and techniques. Chief
among these importations were the Infant School, the English charity-
school subscription societies, and the Lancasterian system. The Infant
School gradually replaced the older Dame Schools and finally led to
our public school primary departments; the school societies played a
sizeable role in our educational history until the middle of the century;
and the Lancasterian system, or monitorial school as it was usually
termed in the United States, maintained a certain popularity for a quar-
ter of a century. Because of its extremely low cost (about $1 to $3 per
pupil per year ) , it made education for all men within the reach of the
populace.5 From such beginnings, education in the nineteenth century
developed. Although teachers and schools differed in their philosophies
and methods, one is able to discern certain overall trends apparent dur-
ing the century.

Common Schools from 1800 to 1825

During this period the common schools, i.e., what today we call the
elementary system, represented approximately the same type of educa-
tion found in the early colonies as well as in Europe under the Refor-
mation several centuries earlier. Actually the times demanded no more
than this.6

Usually the schools and their equipment were of the poorest type.
Many of the teachers were extremely young, untrained, and inexpe-
rienced. The entire curriculum of most schools consisted of reading,
writing, spelling, and sometimes a little arithmetic, all taught in the
language of the people. Many parents considered any further education
"highly injurious for practical life." 7

Reports on early schools indicated that most of the day was devoted
to reading and spelling, for, as Boone remarks, "Spelling at first was not
distinct from reading; or rather, reading was not differentiated from
spelling." 8 Furthermore, all reading remained essentially oral until
the twentieth century. Thus speech education in elementary classes was
associated with oral reading where the greatest emphasis was consist-
ently placed upon aspects of audibility, articulation, enunciation, and
pronunciation. Bodily action received very little attention. Toward the
middle of the century we find an emphasis being placed upon under-
standing the material read.

280 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Emphasis Upon Reading

Some conception of the importance of reading in the grades may be
gained from the following quotation from the 1821 course of study for
primary grades in Boston:

The fourth or youngest class shall stand up with due ceremony at as great a
distance from the instructor as possible, and read with a distinct and audible
tone of voice in words of one syllable. No one of this class shall be advanced
to the third or higher class who cannot read deliberately and correctly in
words of one or two syllables.

No one in the third class shall be advanced to the second who cannot spell
with ease and propriety words of three, four, and five syllables, and read all
the reading lessons in Kelly's Spelling-book,

No one of the second class shall be advanced to the first class who has not
learned perfectly by heart, and recited, as far as practical, all the reading
lessons in Kelly's Spelling-book, the Commandments, and the Lord's Prayer;
all the stops and marks, and their uses in reading; and in Bingham's Spelling-
book the use of common abbreviations . . . the use of numbers and letters
used for numbers in reading; the catalogue of words of similar sound, but
different in spelling and signification; the catalogue of vulgarisms, such as
chimney, not cMmbley—vinegar, not winegar, etc.

Not one of the first class shall be recommended by the examining committee
to be received into the English grammar schools, unless he or she can spell
correctly, read fluently in the New Testament, and has learned the several
branches taught in the second class; and also the use and nature of pauses,
and is of good behavior. And each of the scholars, before being recom-
mended, shall be able to read deliberately and audibly, so as to be heard in
any part of the grammar schools.9

Children were taught to read by the slow and painful process of
mastering the alphabet, the ab's (ab, eb, ib, ob? ub, ac? ec, ic, etc.), tiben
words of one syllable, of two, of three, etc. The best description we
found of this process was quoted from Rev. Burton's The District School
as It Was.10

Procedures in oral reading seem to have been just as mechanical, for
skill in performance was gauged not by the ability to convey meaning
but by the ability to "speak up loud" and "mind the stops and marks/'
This last expression, frequently found in the literature, meant that the
child was taught to pause long enough to count one at a comma, two at
a semi-colon, three at a colon, and four at a period. Such an impersonal
procedure undoubtedly served a utilitarian purpose because frequently
the entire class read aloud together. Reading in unison may have been
the outgrowth of a similar and popular method of teaching spelling, for
the two were always closely integrated. In addition to the two injunc-
tions previously mentioned, the children were also taught to pay care-
ful attention to pronunciation and enunciation and to read fast enough

NINETEENTH-CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 281

to cover a sizeable amount of material. Such were the "guide posts" to
good oral reading in the early part of the nineteenth century.11 Samuel
G. Goodrich in his memoirs of this period notes that such reading gen-
erally was performed "without a hint from the master" and that "repe-
tition, drilling, line upon line, precept upon precept, with here and there
a little touch of the birch— constituted the entire system." 12

Much of the responsibility for this mechanical approach should be
placed upon the inadequacy of teachers and the barren curriculum
which reflected not only the earlier European pattern but also a pioneer
life which offered few cultural advantages. Textbooks used at the time
placed considerable emphasis upon delivery. Marceline Erickson who
analyzed 152 readers used from 1785 to 1885 found that a large num-
ber of them placed major importance upon pronunciation and voice.13
The elocutionary movement of the eighteenth and nineteeth centuries
played its part also. The elocutionists stressed the importance of oral
presentation in delivery and felt that it should be of primary concern
to the teacher.14 In addition, the popular monitorial plan, by which the
teacher instructed the older children, each of whom in turn taught the
younger ones, may have encouraged the teaching of delivery. When a
teacher keeps but one step ahead of his class, he must have very
definite information about what and how he will teach. For such young
instructors, drill procedures in pronunciation and enunciation should
not have presented real difficulty. Neither would the injunction to
"speak up loud" and to cover a large amount of material have proved
troublesome. If we may accept contemporary reports, presentation of
the thought or mood of a selection was never a major concern except in
a few schools and therefore it placed no stumbling block in the path of
the neophyte teacher. What could be simpler then than to confine one's
helpful comments to "Pause for the count of one at a comma, two at a
semicolon, etc."?

New Authors in the Nineteenth Century

A survey of textbooks used in the early days would indicate some
of the emphases we have suggested. Noah Webster, in a letter to Henry
Barnard, stated that before his reader was published in 1785 most of
the books used had been the Bible, Testament, Psalter, and Thomas
Dilworth's Spellingbook, originally issued in 1740.15 William B. Fowle
also mentioned the reading lessons found in early spellers by Moore,
Fanning, and Perry.16 The highly moral content of readers undoubtedly
can be traced to the early religious fervor of the colonists as well as to
the great religious awakening in England and America. The following
reading lesson, which followed the mastering of one-syllable words in

282 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Dilworth's speller, will indicate how textbooks fulfilled their moral
obligation:

No Man may put off the Law of God
The Way of God is no ill Way.
My Joy is in God all the Day
" Ian is a Foe to God.

My Joy is
A bad Ma

Most of the eighteenth-century readers had been by English authors
but William B. Fowle noted that, during the revival of common schools
following the Revolution, textbooks by Webster and Bingham super-
seded all previous ones. Martin accounts for their popularity by saying
that both their titles and their content appealed to the national spirit
fostered in America.17 Although these authors remained extremely
popular far into the nineteenth century, other authors appeared upon
the scene, including Fowle, Enfield, Murray, Scott, Leavitt, Adams,
Pierpont, and Cooke. The 1832 American Annals of Education listed
28 readers published before 1804 and 102 readers published by 1832.18

If the schools had followed the better textbooks of the period, me-
chanical and stereotyped procedures might not have dominated. For
example, the popular Columbian Orator by Caleb Bingham suggested
among other things that the initial impression of yoice and body was
important to an audience, that one should adjust the voice to the size
of the room and vary both the rate and pitch so as to avoid monotony
and an affected variety, that one should have variety in position and
use gesture, and that one should read as he would speak if he "could
arrive at that exactness." Unfortunately, not many teachers followed
such precepts in their classes; practice was not as good as precept.

Secondary Schools from 1800 to 1825

Secondary schools continued to reveal a wide variance from the ele-
mentary in curriculum offerings and in opportunities— a condition which
had also existed under the European church-controlled system both
before and after the Reformation. The influence of European humanism
was evident in the emphasis given to Latin, Greek, classical literature,
and rhetoric. These studies, prominent in the early Latin grammar
schools, continued as the staples of our educational system well into
the nineteenth century. This type of classical education, which had been
established within two decades after the landing of the Pilgrims, un-
doubtedly reflected popular demand. In 1640 one out of every two hun-
dred persons in New England was a college graduate! 19

The academies, started about 1750 and reaching their peak of im-
portance during the 1820's, reflected the later humanism of northern

NINETEENTH-CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 283

Europe, -a -humanism essentially more democratic both in curricular
programming and in its aim at improving the lives of more than merely
the select few. This type of secondary education was devoted less to
the training for the ministry than to preparation for more ordinary
vocations. It reflected, more than the Latin grammar school had done,
the general secularization of the Renaissance as apart from one of its
phases, the Reformation. If the realism and rationalism of the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries influenced our educational system, the
effects are probably to be seen in the academies. We believe, however,
that their broadened curriculums were more directly the outgrowth of
American minds, like Franklin's, which recognized the need for a type
of training directly useful to the citizens of our continent.

A few examples drawn from school statutes show the trend and char-
acter of formal education in speaking and reading. The "Regulations
for Government of the School on Federal Street" stated that "public
Reading and Recitation be instituted," and that "a Public Speaking [be
held] as often as the Trustees shall see fit to order or permit them." The
1832 printed regulations for the Boston Latin Grammar School required
that "Reading English, both in prose and verse, with readiness and pro-
priety, shall be considered essential to every class." "Oratory" and
"declamation and exercises of a forensic kind" were taught at Exeter
while at Leicester "Reading and spelling were strongly recommended , . .
as at least a weekly exercise in the upper school" and public speaking
was "among the first branches taught in the English department." Here
Scott's Lessons in Elocution was used for the first class mentioned and
Blair for the second.20

The constitution of Andover for 1808 gives an indication of what was
to be taught in such courses when it specifically mentions invention,
disposition, style, delivery, and memory. Ebenezer Porter, who held
the Bartlett Professorship of Sacred Rhetoric at Andover from 1813 to
1831, indicates that his textbook, An Analysis of the Principles of Rhe-
torical Delivery, was based upon the requirements of 1808. Walker's
classical Key was used at the Boston Latin Grammar School and Blair's
rhetoric in Miss Pierce's academy at Litchfield.21

Instruction in oral reading claimed a larger proportion of time in ele-
mentary studies than instruction in all aspects of speaking and reading
in the secondary school. Nevertheless, speech training in the secondary
schools may have been superior in quality for at least four reasons: the
teachers were better educated (many academy teachers had M.A.?s);
on the whole the teachers had a more professional attitude, first in the
Latin grammar schools and later in the academies; secondary speech
programs were not limited merely to oral reading (Leicester Academy
had "the art of speaking" and Exeter had "exercises of a forensic kind,"

284 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

to mention only two); and the philosophies basic to secondary schools
indicated an approach to education which differed from that in the
common schools. The college influence upon the grammar school gave
it a somewhat classical slant; on the other hand, the original concept of
education which had promoted the academy produced a more utili-
tarian type of speech training. The close integration of lyceums with
academies in the second quarter of the century is but one example of
school training being put to practical use.

Extracurricular Programs from 1800 to 1825

Almost all schools employed some kind of extracurricular perform-
ances which had their place in speech training. The nature of the per-
formances varied with the individual schools and reflected the age,
interests, and abilities of the students as well as the capabilities of the
instructors. Content ran the gamut from spell-downs, or similar per-
formances of skill in arithmetic, to declamations (original or not), to
debating, dialogues, and plays.

Although prizes and awards for outstanding performance may have
been common, we found only one instance where ribbon awards were
given annually for superior ability in reading. Humphrey reported
informal gatherings of pupils from two schools, but "Quarterdays" were
far more common. At times these were held at individual schools while
in other places several schools combined their talents.22

Some critics felt that these "exhibitions" were excellent because they
'"kept up interest all winter and stimulated both teachers and scholars
to do their best in the way of preparation" while others felt that the
students were "encouraged to most vehement and obstreperous mani-
festations." Many persons objected when the schools put on dialogues
and dramas because their "theatrical cast" was considered immoral in
several sections of the country. Often the program included a variety
of events— original and non-original declamations, dialogues, and plays.
We found some records which indicated that a complete day was used
for such an extensive program. In addition to these forms of entertain-
ment, many academies had debating and rhetorical societies.23

1825 to 1855-Education for All

This period witnessed the culmination of a general belief in, and a
demand for, common education for all. As a result, the structural form
of our public school system as we know it today was achieved by the
middle of the century. The same forces which helped to produce this
result also affected the speech training offered in the elementary and

NINETEENTH-CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 285

secondary schools. Earlier the Lancaster system, the Infant School, the
Sunday School, and the City School Societies had accustomed the popu-
lace to the idea of common schools for all. This idea, intensified by
certain political, economic, and social changes which began in the
first quarter of the century, gave a permanent cast to American educa-
tion by 1855.

After about 1815 the country moved towards the abolition of class
rule and political inequalities—a movement which started in the West-
ern states where men were accepted for their individual worth rather
than for their social standing or for their property. Politically, the
phrase, "dignity and worth of the individual" took on new meaning.
With the extension of suffrage to all men, rich and poor, came the reali-
zation that education was necessary to train men as citizens, and not
merely as members of the Church or for the ministry or because they
belonged to a particular class.24

During this same period the growth of manufacturing increased the
size, number, and importance of cities whose populations then grew
more diversified in economic, religious, and social patterns. Accord-
ingly, the country witnessed the beginnings of a change from an agri-
cultural to an urban society, and this shift, coincident with the desire
for class equality, brought demands from newly formed labor organi-
zations and other groups for a further expansion of educational oppor-
tunities and for improved curriculums. The second quarter of the
century witnessed the long and successful struggle for a tax-supported
school system— a struggle which was directly tied up with the battle to
eliminate pauper or charity schools and church control over education
—both of which were deemed inconsistent with the national conscious-
ness of equality and of non-sectarianism in a democracy.25 Such changes
in the American scene were of course reflected in educational philos-
ophy. Educators began to popularize the needs of man as an articulate^
person in his practical world; and they saw man as a citizen speaking
as well as reading.

Other forces gave impetus and new significance to education in
speaking and reading. The Lyceum movement, the growth of American
literature, and the expansion of both school and public libraries re-
flected a maturing interest in information and culture.26 In the schools,
accordingly, teaching methods began to emphasize full and accurate
understanding of the printed page. Under the influence of Pestalozzi,
Mann, Barnard, and others, there were evident, also, new directions in
pedagogy itself. Teachers began to see the child as a many-sided being,
not as a moral being only. They reasoned that he should understand
the basis of health, and offered him physical training and courses in
physiology; they believed he should understand the world about him,

286 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

and began to introduce courses in science into the curriculum. Educa-
tion took on an "intellectual" objective.

Changes in Speech Education

These objectives in turn influenced class method and procedures.
"Defining" was introduced so that the child could be taught "the habit
of carrying this sense along with the letters of the word"; spelling and
reading were integrated more meaningfully, with spelling losing its
former place of importance and becoming an adjunct of reading; in
grammar, the common dependence upon memorization of rules with
little attention to transfer of training was decried and teachers suggested
teaching a practical grammar and composition from everyday situations.
They favored greater emphasis upon usage in both oral and written
language. Journals carried many articles on vulgarisms, provincialisms,
and improprieties as well as some upon regional differences. They urged
teachers to be as careful of their own speech as of their students' since
it was their duty to preserve the "purity of the English language." 27

The interest in object lessons and visual education was based upon
the philosophy that learning should be integrated with the child's expe-
rience and his everyday language, methods in keeping with contempo-
rary European thinking. The same ideas were reflected in textbooks and
material written for the more formal subjects as well as in juvenile
newspapers, question and answer periods, and class discussions. This
appearance of discussion, designed to develop one's ability to think on
one's feet, was the first indication of interest in good listening habits and
conversational ability. The picture of classroom activity, then, indicates
a definite trend toward speech training in a broader and more practical
sense than that implied in the teaching of oral reading and declamation.
The schools, nevertheless, retained their interest in reading, which
continued to be essentially oral reading; articulation, enunciation, and
pronunciation remained important and show the influence both of the
elocutionary movement, as based upon the work of Walker, Steele and
others, and also of the American concern with literature and culture.
The interest in culture and the elocutionary movement probably helped
to popularize dictionaries, and Walker's, which followed Johnson's Dic-
tionary of the English Language (1755), was long the recognized au-
thority. Gradually, however, Webster's and Worcester's superseded it.
-The phonetic method of teaching reading came into favor in the
lower grades and may have accentuated the emphasis upon articulation
in the upper grades. Teachers were warned to be neither "culpably
negligent ... or fastidiously anxious about a literal copy of Walker's
ortheopy" and that "pedantry in pronunciation is more offensive than

NINETEENTH-CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 287

vulgarity." While regional differences were recognized, instructors
were cautioned to teach pupils to avoid "all the provincialisms which
may prevail in the community in which they have been brought up."
To achieve these goals, teachers used various methods. Some favored
daily phonetic drill to prevent "mumbling, clipping, skipping habits
which are so universal and so destructive to all good reading"; others
depended upon having students correct their own errors through the
use of the dictionary; still others suggested the value of developing
habits of careful listening to make students aware of articulation, or of
using music, a new school subject, or of meticulous drill with the teacher
and pupil in turn reading the sentence.28

Many teachers, school committees, and others interested in the
schools of the period maintained that the teaching of reading should
stress the understanding and communicating of thought more than
correct pronunciation, articulation, enunciation, and modulation. The
two phrases which appeared most frequently in pedagogy were "Read
as you speak" and "Convey the sentiment of the author." These injunc-
tions seemed to be centered on the key desire for understanding by
both the performer and the listener, and to indicate a deeper recogni-
tion of the relationship of oral reading and speaking in the training of
a literate populace. The older emphasis upon quantity of material was
replaced in many instances by an almost fanatical attention to quality,
and some teachers would spend a half hour on a few lines. The pupils
would "spell and define the words; tell their synonyms and opposites;
write and paraphrase the sentence or paragraph; analyze the words;
parse the whole sentence or paragraph; recite the history, geography,,
biography, etc. to which there may be a reference in the sentence." 29
Comments by teachers and students were to be given not only upon
"faults in pronunciation, pauses, inflections, tone; in omitting, substi-
tuting, or putting in words" but also upon "any fault in regard to the
general style and execution of the reading, as affecting the meaning,
strength, or beauty of the passage." 30

In general, there seems to have been a gradually improving attitude
toward rules. "P," for example, suggested that instead of the old "Mind
your stops," the teacher should say, "Mind the sense; read to the sense";
others maintained that children needed "few rules and directions to
guide them in the utterance of sentiments and emotions which they
understand and feel." The stress upon a conscious carry-over from the
style of everyday speaking into reading, the emphasis upon habits of
"good listening" as an aid to improving reading and in developing the
individual, and the oft-reiterated caution to have a "perfect conception
of the piece" or to convey "the sentiment of the author," all indicate a
great improvement in the teaching of reading. Perhaps the basis for

288 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

these changes in methods is to be found in the new interest in the
development of the individual and the recognition of the fact that he
should be taught to think as well as merely to absorb what others have
thought. Nevertheless, many critics continued to maintain that in all
too many schools the children did not understand what they read and
that they were "engaged exclusively with sounds, mere words without
ideas." 31

Textbooks of the Period

Although the old favorites by Bingham, Webster, and Murray re-
mained in general use, many new textbooks appeared during this
period. Primers by Gaullaudet, Worcester, and Parkhurst were highly
recommended; readers by Leavitt, Russell, Pierpont, Swan, Fowle,
Snow, Emerson, Abbot, and Angell were also popular. The famous
McGuffey readers, which were still in use during the twentieth cen-
tury, appeared in the 1830*s. Among textbooks for upper grades and
secondary schools which provided for speech training we should
mention those by Walker, Barber, Emerson, Parker, Putnam, Kelly,
Swan, and Mandeville. Marceline Erickson's thesis reviews some of
these as well as others in the period.

Conversation

Perhaps another forerunner of modern speech training in the schools
was "conversation." This could be "taught in connection with the ordi-
nary recitation exercise ... or we may make it a distinct exercise, giving
out a subject as for composition/' 32

This second, and less prevalent, type of "conversation" may have
developed because of the opportunities for participation in actual dis-
cussions in the lyceums and because the new school libraries opened
vistas beyond the confines of ordinary textbooks. Both undoubtedly
enlarged the horizons of at least some of the students.
JXtol instBttcSea" snanpther term with seemingly the same conno-
tation as that of conversation, "taught in connection with the ordinary
recitation exercise." It bore some resemblance to the "class discussion"
of today although the nineteenth-century pedagogues seemed more
concerned with its value as speech training than seems the case today.
Such class procedure led students not only to a greater understanding
of material, but also "into the habit of thinking and reasoning upon
everything they learn." 33 McGuffey maintained that unless the child
were able to

. . . think without embarrassment in any situation in which he may probably
be placed . . . express His thoughts on any subject with which he is acquainted

NINETEENTH-CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 289

with accuracy, and without hesitation . . . generalize his knowledge with
rapidity, so as to construct an argument, or a defence ... he is not educated;
at least he is not educated suitably for this country, and especially for the
West34

We mentioned the fact that the new libraries and the lyceums prob-
ably encouraged "conversation" by providing material for discussion
and opportunities for participation. It is also probably true that the
general emphasis upon understanding as contrasted with rote learning
served as a basis for the introduction of "oral instruction'7 as a teaching
technique and for the occasional emphasis upon listening. The attention
paid to European philosophy, the broadened curriculum, and the new
interest in the child as a complete being were probably other factors
which encouraged attention to conversation.35 "Oral instruction" or
"conversation/' in turn, may have also influenced the teaching of read-
ing, for certainly the injunction, "Read as you speak," must have become
more meaningful to students.

We consider the 1820 to 1855 period significant even though the only
"speech" courses as such were entitled declamation and usually ap-
peared in the upper grades or in secondary programs.

The Secondary Program

The same forces which affected changes in the common schools also
influenced the secondary programs of the Latin grammar schools, the
academies, and the public high schools. Challenging the position of the
academies during the 1820's the public high schools appeared to satisfy
the needs of a democratic society and "represented a cooperative effort
on the part of the people to provide something for themselves." In gen-
eral, the high schools proposed to prepare youths for commercial pur-
suits and general living; the earliest ones "were entirely unrelated to
the grammar schools , . . and to the colleges." By the mid-century mark,
however, they had begun to base their entrance examinations upon
grammar-school subjects and during the 1870's college entrance tests
were such that a "good high school course was practically essential." 36

All three types of secondary schools offered a better type of speech
training than that usually found in the common schools. Elocution and
declamation were often listed as class subjects. In some instances, daily
classes were held; in others, weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly exercises
wjgrejhe^ rule. At times a subject was listed simply as a "course in
Blair's lectures"— distinctly a speech textbook. "Rhetoric" was also fre-
quently listed as a class subject but the same connotation was not always
given to the term. The commissioners of Massachusetts said, "by rheto-
ric, including reading, is here meant the art of public speaking," but a

290 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

tendency more and more evident toward the half -century mark was to
"deal with the oral aspects of composition as elocution and to confine
rhetoric largely to written composition and criticism/' This was in keep-
ing with the general movement towards helles lettres.37 Courses in
"criticism" or in "criticism of the best English authors" probably were
similar to such rhetoric courses. One encounters classes in "Logical
exercises, in other words, conversation' and we can assume a form of
speech training in such classes. The term "elocution/' which had made
its initial appearance in England nearly a century before, seemed to
grow more popular and to appear in both academies and public high
schools.38 Among elocution textbooks, those by Mandeville, Barber,
Enfield, and Porter were widely used. Blair's book seems to have been
the one most frequently used in advanced courses; Walker's and Camp-
bell's textbooks followed next in line. Russell's Rudiments of Gesture
seems to have been the most used book on action although the more
expensive Austin's was mentioned at times. Later in this period Jamie-
son's and Newman's textbooks, both reflecting the belles lettres move-
ment, exceeded Blair's in popularity.

Extracurricular Programs

Throughout the period students in upper grades, especially in second-
ary schools, participated in varying degrees in speech activities. Exhibi-
tions, often now with "musical exercises interspersed," continued to be
prominent The programs varied, but there seems to have been much
emphasis upon declamation of all types. At times declamation exercises
were held as regular classes; at other times the entire school met for
the performance; occasionally the public was invited. Usually the selec-
tions were memorized, with original pieces growing in prominence
during the later part of the period. The Latin grammar schools and
some academies were apt to have "translations from and into French,
Latin, and Greek languages."39 Wednesdays, Fridays, or Saturdays
seem to have been the preferred days for declamation classes.

Whenever we found adverse criticism of declamation, it seemed to be
concerned with the methods used more than with the activity itself. It
was criticized as being either unnatural and utterly devoid of imagina-
tion or of allowing the imagination to "run riot on the surface of style";
it was also accused of inculcating poor speaking habits in students be-
cause too often the selections were not prepared under constant super-
vision. Exhibitions were often criticized for their "theatrical cast" which
at the time did not seem quite moral enough for the public. On the
other hand, some persons believed that exhibitions could do much good
for "improvement in public speaking.'* 40

NINETEENTH-CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 291

Throughout the period, pupils were able to participate in discussions,
plays, debates, and individual performances in addition to declamation
classes. Most of the extracurricular activities directly connected with
the schools were held on "Quarterdays" or "Exhibitions/' Indirectly the
secondary schools, especially the academies, offered additional speech
experiences to their students by encouraging the growth of lyceums and
literary societies in the local communities. Many biographies of the
period tell of the great personal gains achieved through such groups.
Some of the societies furnished training in parliamentary procedure.41
Although some lyceums were established specifically for school age
people, most of them were general community projects. In either case,
participation by school students was encouraged. The period, 1825 to
1855, also showed some concern for those afflicted with certain speech
defects.42

1855 to 1900

During this period, progress in speech education seems less rapid and
changesjless unusual. It may well be that by the mid-century mark, our
educational system had met the most urgent demands of the populace
and thus the general public, engrossed in national economic and social
problems brought about by the Civil War, the reconstruction period,
the influx of immigrants, and the general growth of the country, were
content to let educators take over the chief responsibility for education.
Perhaps our system had reached a stage in its development where those
skilled in the profession were best able to instigate changes. Froebel's
influence brought the addition of the kindergarten, the only change in
external form; Pestalozzf s influence, noted earlier, became widespread
after the 1860's; and national uniformity was brought about by the
increase in city superintendencies and the establishment of the U. S.
Commission of Education. Finally, Herbartianism played a part in edu-
cation during the 1890's and, although later superseded by other phi-
losophies, it paved the way for changes which we have seen take place
in our own times.

In one sense, almost every elementary teacher in the early part of the
century could have Been considered a speech teacher because most
instruction had centered on oral reading; historical changes in the sec-
ond quarter made the populace aware of the need for an articulate
citizenry and this affected speech training in ways we have already
mentioned. These factors, plus increased demands made upon citizens
during the last half of the century, seemed to make teachers realize that
students needed general knowledge and understanding of man and
nature. With the resultant broadening of the curriculum in both elemen-
tary and secondary schools, less time was allotted to oral reading. The

292 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

last half of the century, accordingly, represents a regrouping of forces
—a consolidation of gains which had gradually appeared during
earlier times— for the new push into twentieth-century education.

Courses in Curriculums from 1855 to 1880

Inspection of curriculums reveals that reading was still the backbone
of the elementary program. Such courses as "enunciation," "elementary
sounds," and "phonetics" suggest direct instruction in both speech and
oral reading. In addition, declamation, conversation, object teaching,
and grammar, which was becoming more concerned with usage, ap-
peared in curricular listings.

The number of subjects offered in high schools had nearly doubled
within three decades. Reports on secondary curriculums in thirty large
cities scattered throughout the country indicate that reading and decla-
mation were taught in about half while elocution was listed in a num-
ber of cases. Rhetoric was offered in almost every school, but we cannot
classify this as speech training since there remained the tendency to
emphasize written rather than oral composition.43 ,

Indirectly the educational philosophy of Pestalozzi played an impor-
tant part in speech education after 1860. The salesmanship and entre-
preneurship of Mr. Sheldon at Oswego Normal were important factors
in its dissemination. Hundreds of Normal graduates taught in nearly
every state of the Union. The natural outcome of the "object lessons"
and "oral discussions," which they advocated was an increase in empha-
sis upon class discussion and upon the teaching of correct usage instead
of formal grammar.44

For this period, then, most of the school emphasis upon speaking
seems to have centered in two classes— the^bject-class, paying particu-
lar attention to the expression of ideas, and the grammar class, dwelling
upon correct usage. Where conversation classes were taught, both
correct usage and adequate expression of ideas were included among
the goals. There were still criticisms of the too prevalent dependence
upon rules and some educators blamed the high-school admission tests
for this emphasis.45

When Wells, president of the National Teachers Association, spoke
in 1864, he stressed the need for "the acquisition of language ... es-
pecially by natural conversation." We shall quote one sentence from
this speech because it seems to foreshadow the type of speech training
found today in many elementary and secondary schools:

The time will never come when analysis and parsing will be dispensed with;
but the time will come surely when instruction in "the art of speaking" will
consist mainly of lessons which embrace actual speaking; of exercises de-

NINETEENTH-CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 293

signed to cultivate die art of conversation, of narration, and other forms of
speech, by constant and careful practice in the use of these forms.46

Object lessons did not usually appear on secondary curricular pro-
grams, but there seemed to be a desire to encourage students to examine
what they read more carefully and this, of necessity, must have resulted
in more thoughtful class discussions. One teacher reported composing
two hundred questions based on the first four lines of Gray's Elegy.
These, he said, were later included in a popular rhetoric. Perhaps the
most stimulating class reported by a former student was Dr. Taylor's
lesson on the first seven lines of Homer's Iliad*'1

Reading Remains Oral

As a classroom subject, reading remained oral. Each of the methods
of teaching reading— the alphabet method, the whole word method,
the phonic method— had its advocates. While articulation, enuncia-
tion, pronunciation, and so forth, remained paramount in importance,
some educators continued to stress the need for conveying the meaning
and sentiment of the author. The attainment of a "good English tone
. . . clear and full . . . correct in quality, i.e., attuned to the normal
sound" was important.48 The ability to read orally seemed essential not
merely as training in an art but for everyday life.

The famous McGuffey readers, whose sale was undoubtedly greater
than that of any other series over three quarters of a century, were very
popular in the Middle West and South. Perhaps more articles and books
have been written about McGuffey and his readers than about any
other textbook author.49 Gail Tousey's article in the Quarterly Journal
of Speech is accurate, but we believe that Tousey, like some other com-
mentators, gives McGuffey more credit than he deserves in the total
picture of education. His books were not too different from many other
good readers although probably he and Russell used material more
nearly adapted to children's abilities, experiences, and interests than
most other school authors. Tousey stressed the rhetorical elements found
in McGuffey and by implication seems to account for their popularity
in this manner. However we are inclined to agree with Vail who, after
a half century acquaintance with the readers as teacher and as editor,
wrote that their popularity was to a large measure dependent upon the
energetic work of the publisher and the fact that "their greatest value
consisted in the choice of masterpieces in literature which by their
comments taught morality and patriotism and by their beauty served
as a gateway to pure literature." 50 It should be stated here in passing'
that the readers reflected a changing attitude towards teaching
cepts of morality.51

294 KHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Reports from states like California, Wisconsin, and New York indi-
cate that among the popular textbooks were those by Webster, Sanders,
Willson, Sargeant, Webb, Hilliard, Howe, Parker and Watson, and
Mandeville. Comments upon these as well as upon the Russell and
Goodrich series and other readers of the period may be found in Mar-
celine Erickson's dissertation.

Th£ term elocution appeared more frequently in the last half of the
century than it had previously. Probably William Russell's definition
exemplifies some of the thinking of the time in differentiating elocution
from speech, enunciation, usage, or reading in its initial stages:

Elocution— In the secondary and in the more advanced stages of educa-
tion, the discipline of the ear should be extended, so as to embrace all the
refining and highly intellectual influences of music and poetry as combined in
elocution.

Intellect, feeling, and imagination, are all inseparably united in the appro-
priate expression of sentiment, as embodied in the language of oratory and
poetry; and their finest effects in utterance depend upon a nice susceptibility
of ear, which culture only can secure to full extent.52

Debating

Various forms of spelling-bees and other local and interschool activi-
ties continued during 1855-1880. Debate presented perhaps one of the
more popular forms of intellectual entertainment. The lyceums con-
tinued to play a part in encouraging such activity. Actually the debat-
ing societies in these years were seldom directly connected with second-
ary schools or colleges, but they seemed to mushroom around such
institutions. Some educators felt that if the school would assume a more
direct responsibility for debating the effects would be more beneficial
and some of the prevalent abuses would disappear.53

1880 to 1900

Although reading remained the backbone of elementary education
during the last two decades of the century, possibly less class time was
given to it than before and more time was devoted to silent reading,
both in the class and without. In the first place, the number of circulat-
ing libraries, of newspapers, magazines, and periodicals increased rap-
idly so that more people needed skill in silent reading. Secondly, the
enlargement of the school curriculums had added extra courses of
study, with added reading assignments. Prior to 1880 we found only
one or two references to reading which did not specifically mean oral
reading. References to silent reading increased after 1880 and a very
small number of scientific studies were made concerning rate and com-

NINETEENTH-CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 295

prehension in oral and silent reading.54 The influence of Herbart,
Froebel, and Pestalozzi undoubtedly was responsible for this new
direction in education.

The school superintendent at Quincy might declare that "the custom
of making oral reading the principal and almost the only means of
teaching reading has led to many errors prevalent today/7 55 yet despite
all indications of change, reading continued to be the staple of gram-
mar school education, especially in smaller localities. Mark Sullivan's
observation is typical:

Our progress in school was measured by graduation from First Reader to
Fifth. We described ourselves as "in the Second Reader" or "in the Third
Reader." The "readers" were the backbone of education, in East Grove and
throughout the nation; they were to America of the 1880*s what the "New
England Primer" had been to the America of the preceding century.

The series of readers used at East Grove was Barnes'. They were an imi-
tation of but inferior to McGuffey's which were the standard readers through-
out most of America.56

Essentially, reading remained oral reading in the grades; that is what
most teachers considered it to be. In those schools which received spe-
cial commendation reading emphasized the understanding and com-
munication of thought57 In such schools, moreover, additional speech
training was provided through reformed grammar classes or the addi-
tion of classes in conversation or "daily exercises in talking."

.OSTthe secondary level, however, reading as a classroom subject was
definitely being eliminated from the program. In reports on curriculums
and suggested curriculums, reading was not mentioned.58
rSfn this period, also, it seems evident that reading and its methods
were set off from elocution. The Cyclopedia of Education and the Dic-
tionary of Education and Its Instruction agree with others who differen-
tiate reading from elocution by limiting reading to certain methods (the
alphabetical, word, phonic, and phonetic) while they list articulation,
pronunciation, emphasis, voice inflection and tones for elocution. They
further state:

In modern times [1880's], rhetoric as an art treats of all composition,
whether spoken or written. . . . The practice, at present, which seems to be
increasing in favor with teachers, is to omit elocution, or training in mere
delivery, and to extend the importance of invention beyond that assigned to
it by Whately.59

A few schoolmen deplored the separation of reading and elocution, as
did the superintendent of schools at Salem:

I must confess, however, that I am not entirely satisfied with the methods
of instruction today in the upper grades of our schools in teaching the use of
the voice and how to apply it in effective reading to others

296 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

By the books in use from 1830 to 1860 and after, the directions mentioned
above [articulation, enunciation, pronunciation, vowels and consonants,
accent, emphasis, inflections, tones and modulations, and in some books many
other topics] for training the voice were enforced in the daily lessons. Now
much less attention is paid to these matters. The method today seems to be
to read good literature, books by the best authors. Doubtless this improves
thought and the written forms of expression, but it lacks the power of express-
ing that thought by the vocal organs. We have in these days "Schools of
Expression," "Schools of Oratory," and similar institutions by other names,
but where do we find the same excellence of teaching tone and pitch, force
and emphasis, articulation and pronunciation, as was common in the best
schools a half century and more ago? 60

Seetfiingly debate remained one of the most popular forms of speak-
ing activity in the country. This was true in the West as well as the
East. Furthermore, it had a place as an activity in many schools. Cordell
Hull who attended secondary school in the 1880's wrote:

The parents of the Willow Grove section were generally farmers, with very
limited education, but they were deadly in earnest that their children should
get the utmost from their schooling.

It was they who established a debating society at the schoolhouse so that
their children could develop themselves in debate. They attended the debates
and followed the arguments closely and seriously. They would not stand for
levity. I remember that at one of the debates various parents rose and pro-
tested that some of us had not fully prepared our arguments.61

William Jennings Bryan writes in his memoirs, "In the high school
I ... went a step forward in the art of declamation in the literary

society We had a debating club in the high school." 62 George W.

Norris claims that what he learned of parliamentary procedure and
human nature in debating on trie Ohio frontier later helped him as a
U.S. Senator. He records his appreciation for the activity in the follow-
ing manner:

I remember that during the summer months when the society met I
worked hard in the harvest fields all day; and when daylight faded, walked
to Clyde, then three miles away, for the debates, and was back in the fields
soon after daylight the next morning. It was not difficult; it was a great
privilege, and a great pleasure.63

In conclusion, we observe that the first quarter century pictures an
extremdhf meager general education, especially on lower levels, and
Aafalmost the sole method of teaching was that of oral reading. The
1825-1855 period is the most interesting and shows signs of a decided
improvement in speech training and in education in general; in the face
of social changes, public school education became broader and its
methods, in addition to those of oral reading and elocution, made a
place for discussion and conversation. The last half of the century,

NINETEENTH-CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 297

taken as a whole, shows consolidation and refinement of gains made
during earlier years, while the final two decades witness the distinction
between reading and elocution, the rise of silent reading, the virtual
disappearance of oral reading from secondary schools, and the appear-
ance of debate activity. The forms and methods of reading and speak-
ing in nineteenth-century schools were to be shaped and channeled
into courses and activities labeled "speech" in the twentieth-century
public school.

Notes

1. E. P. Cubberley, The History of Education (New York, 1942), p. 364.

2. The Evolution of the Massachusetts Public School System (New York,
1894), p. 16.

3. Cubberley, History, p. 653.

4. Horace Mann, "Causes Which Have Contributed to an Abatement of Inter-
est in our Common Schools," Connecticut School Journal, I (1838-1839), p. 51.

5. Cubberley, History, pp. 661, 667-668; Josiah Quincy, Municipal History of
the Town and City of Boston (Boston, 1830), p. 21; "Free School Society," Amer-
ican Journal of Education, XIX (1869), 509; J. P. Blanchard, "Report of the Com-
mittee Appointed to Make an Experiment of Introducing the Monitorial System into
the Primary Schools of the City [Boston]," Am. J. Ed., Ill (1828), 135-145.

6. Samuel G. Goodrich, Recollections of a Lifetime, I ( New York and Auburn,
1857), 38.

7. Ibid., pp. 33-35; Thomas Low Nichols, Forty Years of American Life (New
York, 1937), p. 36; Charles Beecher, ed., Autobiography of Lyman Beecher, D.D.,
I (London, 1836), p. 20; Sophia Hayes Wyatt, Autobiography of a Landlady of the
Old School (Boston, 1854), pp. 16-17; Jacob Abbott, New England and Her Insti-
tutions (Boston, 1835), p. 269; Prof. Olmsted, extracts from a lecture, in American
Annals of Education, IX (1839), 171; John Neal, Wandering Recollections of a
Somewhat Busy Life (Boston, 1869), p. 105; A., "Colleges and Common Schools/*
Am. An. Ed., Ill (Boston, 1833), 259.

8. Richard G. Boone, Education in the United States (New York, 1889), p. 66.

9. "The Course and Mode of Instruction to be Pursued in the Primary Schools
in 1821," quoted in "Subjects and Courses of Public Instruction in Cities, Boston,
Massachusetts," Am. /. Ed., XIX (1869), 471.

10. Quoted by Pres. Dwight in "Remarks on Early Education," Am, An. Ed.,
Ill (Boston, 1833), 307-309.

11. "History of Common Schools in Connecticut," Am. J. Ed., V (1858),
145-146; Joseph T. Buckingham, letter to Henry Barnard, December 10, 1860,
quoted in Am. J. Ed., XIII (1863), 131; Rev. Burton, District School, p. 109.

12. Goodrich, Recollections, p. 144.

13. Marceline Erickson, "Speech Training in the Common Schools, Academies,
and High Schools from 1785 to 1885 as Revealed by a Study of the Books Used in
the Schools," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1948.

14. Regulations of 1823 for the Boston Latin School, quoted in "Subjects and
Courses of Instruction in Cities, Boston, Massachusetts," Am. J. Ed., XIX (1869),
489; Emory Washbura, History of Leicester Academy (Boston, 1855), p, 31;
"School Books in the United States," Am. An. Ed., II (1832), 371-384.

15. Quoted in Am. J. Ed., XIII (1863), 123-134.

16. "Memoir of Caleb Bingham," Am. J. Ed., V (1858), 339,

17. Ibid.; George Martin, Evolution, p. 100.

18. See "American Text Books," Am. /. Ed., XIII (1863), 211-222, 401-408,
626-640; XIV (1864), 601-607, 751-777; XV (1865), 539-575.

298 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

19. "The American Education Society," Am. J. Ed., XIV (1864), 367.

20. Regulations for the Government of the School on Federal Street (Boston,
1797), Articles XV, XVI, XXVII; A, Wiriterbotham, "View of the United States of
America, London, 1796," as quoted in Am. J. Ed., XXIV (1873), 139; "Regula-
tions of 1823 for the Boston Latin School," op. cit., p. 489; Elmer H. Wilds, "Pub-
lic Speaking in the Early Colleges and Schools," Quarterly Journal of Speech, II
(1916), 37; Emory Washbum, History, p. 31.

21. The Constitution and Associate Statutes of the Theological Seminary in
Andover with a Sketch of Its Rise and Progress (Andover, 1808), p. 17; Warren
Guthrie, "The Development of Rhetorical Theory in America, 1635-1850," Speech
Monographs, XVI (August, 1949), 104-105; "Regulations of 1823 for the Boston
Latin Grammar School," op. cit., p. 489; Alain Campbell White, History of Litch-
field, Connecticut, 1720-1920 (Litchfield, 1920), p. 114.

22. Thomas C. Simonds, History of South Boston (Boston, 1857), pp. 116-117,
Heman Humphrey, letter to Henry Barnard, Am. J. Ed., XIII (1863), 127-128;
Alain C. White, History, p. 122; Sophia H. Wyatt, Autobiography, p. 79.

23. John Neal, Recollections, p. 29; David L. Dodge, Memorial, Consisting of
an Autobiography (Boston, 1854), pp. 49-50; James A. Woodburn, Life of Thad-
deus Stevens (Indianapolis, 1913), p. 5.

24. Every new state admitted east of the Mississippi, except Ohio and Louisiana,
granted full manhood suffrage at the time it came into the Union.

25. Cubberley, History, p. 672; "Increasing Attention to the Subject of Educa-
tion," Am. J. Ed., I (1826), 379; F. Eby and C. F. Arrowood, The Development
of Modern Education (New York, 1945), p. 713; Governor Clinton, "Extracts from
a Speech to the New York Legislature at Albany" quoted in Am. J. Ed., Ill ( 1828),
125; "Extracts from Governor Morton's Inaugural Address," quoted in Common
School Journal, II (1840), 48.

26. "American Lyceum," quoted from the American Traveller in Am. J. Ed.,

III (1828), 633; "Popular Improvement," Am. J. Ed, III (1828), 377-378,
Horace Mann, "Third Annual Report of the Secretary of the Board of Education,"
Com. Sch. J., II (1840), 122; George De Mille, Literary Criticism in America
(New York, 1931), 31; the American Traveller quoted in "American Lyceum,"
Am. J. Ed., Ill (1828), 702; A. B. Alcott, "Outline of Instruction as Conducted
in Cheshire Primary School No. 1, Winter Term, 1826-27," ibid., p. 93; "District
School Libraries," Com. Sch. J., II (1840), 66; VI (1844), 212; "Resolves Con-
cerning School District Libraries (Chapter 113)," Com. Sch. J., VII (1845),
369-370; "District School Libraries," Com. Sch. J., II (1840), 66; "The School
Library," ibid., pp. 106-112.

27. Professor [sic] Pillans, "Account of the Method of Teaching to Read in the
Sessional Schools," Am, An. Ed., I (1831), 71; P., "Spelling," Com. Sch. /., II
(1840), 155-157; O.C.E., "Spelling," ibid., pp. 15-16; E.M.G., "Spelling," Com.
Sch. J., Ill (1841), 51-52; T. Parsons, S. Howe, R. Neals, "Report on Grammar
and Writing Schools in Boston," Com. Sch. /., VII (1845), 298; "Vulgarisms,"
Com. Sch. J., II (1840), 160; "Barbarisms, Solecisms, Improprieties," Com. Sch. J.,

IV (1842), 81-84; "Foreign Words and Phrases," Com. Sch. J., XI (1849),
25-26; "Provincialisms," ibid., pp. 190-191; "Both, Each, Either," ibid., pp. 312-
314; "English Grammar," ibid., pp. 374-375; Thrifty, "To the Editor of the
Cabinet and Visitor," Com. Sch. J. Ill (1841), 31-32; VII (1845), 196; "Practice
vs. Precept," Com. Sch. /., VII (1845), 225.

28. "Review of Ebenezer Porter's Principles of Rhetorical Delivery," Am. J.
Ed., II (1827), 357; "Pronunciation," Com. Sch. J., I (1839), 167; Thomas
L. Nichols, Forty Years, p. 65; "On Teaching Reading, No. XII," Com. Sch. J., VI
(1844), 364, 367; Utopia, "Letters to a Primary School Teacher," quoted from
Newbttryport Herald, Com. Sch. J., VI (1844), 56; "Reading," Com. Sch. J., V
(1843, 98; "Singing in the Common Schools," Extracts from Boston School Com-
mittee Report, Com. Sch. J., Ill (1841), 189.

29. William C. Woodbridge, "Reading," Am. An. Ed., II (1832), 59.

NINETEENTH-CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 299

30. "On Teaching Reading, No. XII," Com. Sch. J.} VI (1844), 365.

31. P., "How to Teach Reading, No. XIII" Com. Sch. /., VI (1846), 386;
A. B. Alqott, "Common Education: Elementary Instruction/' Am. /. Ed., Ill ( 1828),
372; A School Committee Man, "Reading," Com. Sch. J., I (1839), 158; Derby,
"Individual Development," Am. An. Ed., IV (1834), 367-370, George R. Hand,
"Report on a Course of Instruction for Common Schools," Western Literary In-
stitute and College of Professional Teachers, XI (1841), 240; Horace Mann,
"Second Annual Report of the Secretary of the Board of Education," Life and
Works of Horace Mann, II (1891), 532; Thomas H. Palmer, "The Essentials of
Education," American Institute of Instruction, XX ( 1849), 85.

32. P., "Description of a Good School," Com. Sch. J.f VIII (1846), 71-74.

33. R., "Limited Recitations," Com. Sch. J., IV (1842), 263; Extracts from
"Report of a Committee on the Subject of Schools in Rhode Island, May 17, 1832,"
Am. An. Ed., Ill (1833), 282-284.

34. William H. McGuffey, "Examinations," Western Literary Institute and Col-
lege of Professional Teachers, VI (Cincinnati, 1836), 241.

35. P., "Description of a Good School," Com. Sch. J., op. cit., 71-74, Horace
Mann, "Seventh Annual Report of the Secretary of the Board of Education," Com.
Sch. J., VI (1844), 120.

36. Cubberley, History, p. 699; Eby and Arrowood, History, pp. 748, 751.

37. Extracts from "Report of Commissioners, appointed by a Resolve of the
Legislature, passed on 22nd February, 1825," Am. /. Ed., I (1826), 90; Warren
Guthrie, "The Development of Rhetorical Theory in America, 1635-1850," SM,
XV (1948), 70; Horace Mann, "Seventh Annual Report," Com. Sch. J., VI (1844),
93.

38. "Public High Schools of Salem," Am. J. Ed., Ill (1828), 492; "Reports
on Providence High Schools," ibid., p. 429; Extracts from Prospectus of "High
School of Buffalo, New York," ibid., pp. 233-235; "Courses of Education in the
New York High School," Am. /. Ed., I (1826), 26; John Griscom, "Monitorial
Instruction," ibid., 50-52.

39. "Musical Lecture and Exhibitions," Am. An. Ed., V (1835), 91.

40. "On the Cultivation of Imagination and Taste as Aids to Expression," Am.
An. Ed., IV (1834), 306-309; W. Baird, "Examinations and Exhibitions," Am.
An. Ed., IV (1834), 374-375.

41. S. C. Phillips, "On the Usefulness of Lyceums," American Institute of In-
struction, II (1832), 76; Allen Johnson, Stephen Douglass (New York, 1908),
p. 16; Extracts from a letter by Joseph Harrington, 1849, in Thomas C. Simonds,
History of South Boston (Boston, 1857), p. 128.

42. "Motives to Study in the Ipswich Female Seminary," Am. An. Ed., Ill
(1833), 76; "On Stammering," Am. An. Ed., V (1835), 456-461.

43. "Subjects and Courses of Public Instruction in Cities," Am, J. Ed., XIX
(1869), 77-144, 463, 469-576.

44. W. P. Atkinson, "The Defects of Our School System," American Institute
of Instruction, XXXIX (1869), 41; S. S. Greene, "The Elementary Study of the
English Language," ibid., pp. 59-64; M. H. Buckharn, Letter to Henry Barnard,
Am. J. Ed., XVI (1866), 555-556; Cubberley, History, pp. 388-392; Richard E.
Thursfield, Henry Barnard's American Journal of Education (Baltimore, 1945),
pp. 204-211.

45. H. F. Harrington, "Remarks," Am. I. Instr., XL (Boston, 1870), 68.

46. W. H. WeUs, "Methods of Teaching English Grammar," Am. J. Ed., XV
(1865), 149.

47. William A. Mowry, Recollections of a New England Educator (New York,
1908), pp. 78-80, 115.

48. M. H. Buckham, "The English Language in Society and in the School,"
Am. /. Ed., XIV (1864), 352; Joel Parker, "Reading as an Art," American Jour-
nal of Education and College Review, II (1856), 193-207; William H. Wells,
"Report to the Chicago Board of Education," Am. /. Ed., VIII (I860), 530-540,

300 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Gideon F. Thayer, "XIII. Letters to a Young Teacher," Am J. Ed., IV ( 1857),
219-227; "Phonetics," Cyclopedia of Education (New York, 1877), 699-701;
Edward P. Weston, "Extremes in Education," Am, I. Instr., XXXV (1864),
18-24; William Russell, "The Cultivation of the Expressive Faculties," Am. J Ed ,
III (1857), 321-345; Francis T. Russell, "On the Use of Rules in Teaching
Reading," Am. I. Instr., XXV (1855), 53-75; Fannie Lmdsley, "Course of Read-
ing for Primary Grades," The Chicago Schoolmaster, IV (1871), 38-42; George
S. Boutwell, Educational Topics and Instruction (Boston, 1859), pp. 144-148;
230, John W. Hoyt, Report on Education (Washington, 1870), p 60; C. E.
Stowe, "Teachers Seminaries or Normal Schools in the U.S.," Am. J. Ed., XV ( 1865 ) ,
692; Dr. Ellis, "Dedication o£ Quincy School House," Am. J. Ed, XII (1862),
712; M. H. Buckham, Letter to Henry Barnard, Am. J. Ed., XVI (1866), 555-556.

49. Harvey C. Minnich, William McGuffey and His Readers (New York, 1936),
pp. 195-200.

50. Henry V. Vail, A History of the McGuffey Readers (Cleveland, 1910), pp.
62, 69; Gail J. Tousey, "McGuffe/s Elocutionary Teachings," QJS, XXXIV (Febru-
ary, 1948), 80-87.

51. Richard E. Thursfield, Henry Barnard's Journal, pp. 217-219.

52. William Russell, "Intellectual Education— Perceptive Faculties," Am. J. Ed.y
II (1856), 137.

53. "History of Public High Schools of Hartford, Connecticut," Am. J. Ed.,
XXII (1871), 346; James N. McElhgott, "Debating, a Means of Educational
Discipline," Am. J. Ed., I (1855), 495-514; Catharine McKeen, "Mental Edu-
cation of Women," ibid., 577-578.

54. William S, Gray, Summary of Investigations Relating to Reading ( Chicago,
1925), p. 5; Ada V. Hyatt, The Place of Oral Reading in the School Program. Its
History from 1880-1941 (New York, 1943), pp. 15-16; Cubberley, History, p. 402.

55. Hyatt, Reading, p. 14.

56. Mark Sullivan, Education of an American (New York, 1938), p. 61.

57. W. H. Holmes, "Individual Instruction in Reading in the Higher Grades,"
Educational Work, I-II (Worcester, 1906), 207-210; Walter Kunce, "The Art
of Reading," The Educator Journal, VI (1905-1906), 97-99; Albert Marble,
"On Teaching the Effective Use of English," Educational Review, III (1892),
22-30; S. S. Block, "The Science and Art of Reading," Am. I. Instr., LII (Boston,
1881), 156-173; James L. Hughes, "Objective Methods of Teaching Elemen-
tary Reading," Education Review, II (1891), 162-168; George E. Hardy, "The
Function of Literature in the Elementary Grades," Education Review, II (1891),
140-150; B. G. Northrop, "The Quincy Method," Am. I. Instr., LI (1880),
3-22; R. C. Metcalf, "The Public Library as an Auxiliary to the Public Schools,"
ibid., 46-48; Charles Eliot, quoted in Edgar W. Knight, Fifty Years of Ameri-
can Education ( New York, 1952), pp. 41-42.

58. Ray G. Huling, "The American High School," Educational Review, II
(1891), 40-56, Report of the Committee of Ten On Secondary School Studies,
Washington, United States Bureau of Education, 1893, quoted in Edgar W. Knight
and Clifton L. Hall, Readings in American Education History (New York, 1951),
pp. 555-556.

59. H. Kiddle and A. J. Schem, Dictionary of Education and Instruction (New
York, 1881), pp. 105-206, 245-246, 252-253, 290, Cyclopedia of Education (New
York, 1877), pp. 257, 721, 733, 847.

60. William A. Mowry, Recollections, pp. 28, 267.

61. Memoirs of Cordell Hull, I (New York, 1948), 14.

62. W. J, Bryan and Mary B. Bryan, The Memoirs of William Jennings Rnian
(Chicago, 1925), p. 42.

63. Fighting Liberal, the Autobiography of George W. Norris (New York, 1945),
pp. 23-26, 27.

Five Private Schools of Speech

EDYTH RENSHAW

American life after the Civil War was characterized throughout the
North by a decidedly greater prosperity and comfort than ever before.
It is true that the panic of 1873 brought privation into millions of homes,
but gradually business not only recovered but real wealth was greater
than before the war. Men had money to spend without knowing very
well how to spend it.1

Nothing had ever succeeded like America. Success tended to give a
materialistic cast to an American's view of his world. He required that
even his culture serve some useful purpose. He wanted poetry that
taught a lesson, tunes that he could whistle, and paintings that told a
story. His attitude toward culture was both suspicious and indulgent.
Culture was tolerated only for leisure hours and even then it was
chiefly for womenfolk.

The American's passion for education was unique. His public school^
system was the oldest in the world. He was the first to establish public
libraries. He was the first to open colleges to women. Every school,
library, lyceum, and chautauqua advertised the American's eager desire
for self -improvement.

The postwar period of self -improvement, of popularization of culture,
and of general prosperity was a time ripe for development in a field
long popular with Americans, the field of oratory. In fact eloquence—
the art of the pulpit, of the forum, and of the tribunal— was the only
literary art which performed a vital function in the early nineteenth
century.2 Later in the century, oratory (and rhetoric in the classical
sense ) was to make a place for a new and less original art. It was a
re-creative art— the oral interpretation of literature.

What better cities to develop the new art than Philadelphia and
Boston? Oratory had long been popular in both. Both cities were
known throughout the country as cultural centers. The first of the well-
known and long-popular private schools of speech was established in
Philadelphia, although many students and young people who sought

301

302 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

careers on the lyceum circuits flocked to Boston. And in Boston the
forerunner of the private speech schools opened in 1872 when the
newly-founded Boston University included the first university school
of oratory. To this school, as to the rest of the university, women were
admitted on equal footing with men. Although the school did not gain
the future which had been dreamed for it, from its early students came
some of the men and women who were later to become outstanding
leaders in speech education.

L^wis Baxter Monroe was the first head of the Boston University
School of Oratory, with the title of Snow Professor of Oratory. At the
time of his appointment Monroe was at the height of his career as an
educator. He had been supervisor of reading in the city of Boston and
was the author of a set of readers which were clearly in the vein of
interpretative reading. In addition he was a platform reader of note
throughout New England. Monroe was a pioneer credited with exerting
power in changing the emphasis in oratory and declamation from the
display of technique to the communication of ideas.

Before Monroe studied with Steele Mackaye 3 (the American teacher
of Delsarte methods) he was familiar with Swedenborg's philosophy.
Moreover, Monroe had already worked out theories similar to those of
Delsarte; accordingly he found the ideas of Delsarte congenial and
taught them In his classes.4

Shortly after his death in 1879 the Boston Herald bestowed consid-
erable praise on Monroe as an educator who exerted great influence in
the field of elocution,5 According to the article there were 5000 stu-
dents of oratory and elocution in Boston, Monroe is mentioned as a
"leading influence/' Among his students who later became prominent
were Charles Wesley Emerson, Samuel Silas Curry, Anna Baright
Curry, Leland T. Powers, Elizabeth Harwood, Moses True Brown,
Edward N. Kirby, Franklin Sargent, Mary A. Currier, and Robert
Raymond.6 Emerson, Curry, Powers, and Sargent were among the dis-
tinguished men who lauded Monroe's effectiveness as a teacher and
his influence in awakening his students to the practical use of the
imagination in elocution. According to Sargent, Monroe was the origi-
nator of the transcendental school of thought in American elocution
theory.7 Doubtless he may be called the original force which found its
outlet in the five schools we consider here.

FIVE PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF SPEECH 303

The Five Private Schools
The National School of Elocution and Oratory

After his release from the Union Army, J\ W. Shoemaker,8 a young
Pennsylvanian who had taught school a few years prior to the war,
moved to Philadelphia. He had already made some slight reputation
as a platform reader and lecturer and was seeking advancement in
those fields. Shoemaker taught private classes in elocution in Phila-
delphia and continued his platform work. In 1867 he married Rachel
Hinkle who had been a fellow student at the State Normal School
from which both had been graduated. The two gave programs through-
out Pennsylvania and were also associated in various schools.
-Their-first school was the School for Elocution and Penmanship.
Subsequently they operated the Philadelphia Institute for Elocution
and Languages and finally the National School of Elocution and Ora-
tory. The National School, opening on September 1, 1873,9 was for-
mally chartered by the state in 1875.10 Its proprietors claimed that it
was the first school of its kind to be chartered in the United States.
The National School, always with a member of the Shoemaker family
at its head, remained in continuous operation with an average enroll-
ment of about two hundred until 1943 when it was forced by war con-
ditions to close.11

In their first published catalogue ( 1874) the Shoemakers called atten-
tion to the fact that, though they were beginning a new school, "work
bearing directly upon the present organization was commenced ... on
the sixth of August, 1866. ... It is estimated that not less than three
thousand students have been under instruction since the commence-
ment of the work. At least six hundred Lectures and Readings before
educational bodies, lyceums, and promiscuous assemblies have been
given in the same time. Students from the Institution are actively
engaged as teachers in eight States of the Union." 12 Thus the institu-
tion was actually beginning with the support of a large alumni and a
seven-year history.

When the National School of Elocution and Oratory was formally
established, there were four full-time teachers and four part-time lec-
turers on special subjects for approximately ninety students. The fol-
lowing year another lecturer was added and the student body enlarged
to about one hundred twenty-five. The size of the faculty increased as
the school slowly grew. When Shoemaker died in 1880 there were
twelve teachers and two hundred students. In the next five years the
school achieved its maximum size with about two hundred and fifty
students.13 From that time until Mrs. Shoemaker's death in 1915, al;

304 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

though the size of the school fluctuated, the average student body num-
bered around two hundred and the faculty approximately ten.

In the beginning the school offered a two-year course. Students who
finished the course, passed the examination, and deposited a thesis
were awarded a diploma of graduation.14 By 1878 the degree of Bach-
elor of Oratory was substituted for the simple diploma and a plan for
giving the Master's degree was announced. It was to be conferred on
any holder of the Bachelor's degree who at the expiration of three
years passed a satisfactory examination upon the course of reading
prescribed by the school.15 These requirements for both degrees re-
mained much the same until the school ceased to operate.

The Emerson College of Oratory

In 1880 when Charles Wesle^JEmerson opened his speech classes
in Boston, he named hfs" school The Monroe Conservatory in honor of
his former teacher.16 Emerson, a retired minister, had entered Boston
University in 1872 to study law and oratory.17 As long as Monroe
taught, Emerson continued to study with him. After Monroe's death,
Emerson himself began teaching, and in a few years changed the name
of his school to the Monroe College of Oratory. Not until 1891 was
Emerson's name used instead of Monroe's. From that date on, though
the title has since been shortened to Emerson College, the school has
always been called by its founder's name.

The first year Emerson had only about a dozen students. By 1891
over five hundred students were enrolled. By this time Emerson had
associated with him fifteen regular faculty members, eight regular
lecturers on special subjects, and other occasional lecturers and plat-
form readers. The summer school on Martha's Vineyard in 1892 in-
cluded seven hundred students from every state in the Union.18

In 1894 Emerson College of Oratory affiliated with a small, private
school owned by Moses True Brown, a former student of Monroe's.
Brown sold his property, the Boston School of Oratory, to Henry Law-
rence Southwick, a teacher in Emerson College, and its secretary.19 For
a time the two schools used the same facilities, but issued separate
diplomas. Within a few years Brown's school was absorbed in name as
well as in fact by Emerson's.

Southwick and his wife, the former Jessie Eldridge, had been among
Emerson's first students. Throughout their lifetime they were asso-
ciated with the school, first as teachers and then as part owners and
administrators. When Emerson retired in 1903, the Southwicks were
chiefly responsible for carrying on the school in much the same spirit
as that of its founder.
During the twentieth century, when standards for teachers' certificates

FIVE PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF SPEECH 305

were raised, Emerson College teachers studied in local universities
largely because of Southwick's insistence on a well-educated faculty.
In 1909 Emerson graduates were granted teachers' certificates without
examination. Several colleges accredited work taken at Emerson.20 By
1919 the Emerson college curriculum, facilities, and faculty met state
requirements, and the legislature extended to the college the power to
grant degrees.21 From 1880 to 1919 Emerson College of Oratory was a
private school of speech under the direct supervision of Emerson or
those who had been his close professional associates.

The influence of the college was extended by the participation of its
fSachers in special summer schools and in training schools for teachers.
The popularity of at least six of the Emerson teachers on the national
entertainment circuit, as well as others in a more limited area, attracted
many students. The influence of the college was still further extended
through the loyalty of its former students.

The Columbia School of Oratory

In 1890 two graduates of Emerson College, Mary Blood and Ida
Riley, established the Columbia School of Oratory, Physical Culture,
and Dramatic Art in Chicago with the stated purpose of teaching
Emerson principles by Emerson methods. The school was successful
an3~enjoyed a^ national reputation for years.

Within five years, although there were only eighty-five students, two
office assistants and five additional teachers were employed. As extra
attractions, the school offered lectures by five educators in special fields,
recitals by the faculty, and Leland Powers as a guest reader.22 The
practice of presenting special lecturers was continued and Powers read
at Columbia every year until 1905.

By 1895 Columbia was offering a four-year course leading to a
professional diploma. Thirteen were granted that year. Before 1900,
however, the school had settled down to having a two-year course of
study, a third year of postgraduate work, and extra evening and summer
sessions. The average enrollment for the regular session was about a
hundred, and about fifty each for the other two sessions.23 After Ida
Riley's death in 1904, the school was incorporated under the short title
of the Columbia School of Expression. It retained its essential original
character until after Miss Blood retired in 1927.

The^ announced purpose ofjthe school was to train public readers,
teachers of^Yato^ranH""3rarnatic art, and to cultivate the graces of
exgf^^On; "Hie acknowledTged authority for the theories and methods
used was that of Charles W. Emerson. Until after Emerson's retirement
in 1903, the Columbia catalogs announced that the physical culture
course was the one taught originally by him. His textbooks were as-

306 KHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

signed as supplementary reading even after Blood and Riley published
their own works modeled on the master's. The Columbia School may,
therefore, be considered an extension of its Boston prototype.

The School of Expression

A few years after the founding of Emerson College two other stu-
dents of Monroe formed a partnership in Boston. Anpa Baright merged
her School of Elocution and Expression with S. S. Curry's private
classes. The new venture was called simply The School of Expression.24

Both Anna Baright and Curry were advanced students when they
enrolled in Boston University.25 Miss Baright had been graduated from
Cook's College Institute in 1873. After four years' study with Monroe
she became one of his assistants. Upon Monroe's death in 1879, she
opened a private school of speech. Curry had been graduated from
Grant College in Tennessee before he enrolled in the university's first
class. He worked with Monroe while he acquired the M.A., B.D., and
Ph.D. degress. After Monroe's death when the university's School of
Oratory was reduced to a department in the School of All Sciences,
Curry succeeded Monroe as Snow Professor of Oratory. This position
he held until 1888, although he was also teaching in his own private
school which he had started in 1883 after his marriage to Anna Baright.

The first catalog of the School of Expression was printed in 1885;
in 1888 the school was incorporated. In 1895 it absorbed the Boston
College of Oratory.26 Authority to grant degrees was obtained in 1938,
when a four-year college curriculum was introduced. In 1943 the cor-
porate name of the institution was changed to Curry College. Altogether
the school has been in continuous operation almost seventy years. For
over forty years the Currys served as administrative officers and teach-
ers in the School of Expression.

The Leland Powers School of the Spoken Word
Another one of Monroe's students who became prominent in the
teaching of speech was Leland Todd Powers. Twenty years younger
than Emerson, and ten years younger than Curry, Powers entered
Boston University in 1878 when he was twenty-one years old. He re-
mained at the University after Monroe's death and was graduated two
years later.27 While there he was a fellow student of Emerson and a
pupil of Curry. He also studied in Anna Baright's private school.

A talented reader, Powers was placed under contract to the Redpath
Lyceum Bureau early in his career. Under its management he began a
series of engagements which in a few years included appearances in a
dozen states.28 For many years he made an annual transcontinental
tour. He was a popular recitalist at the Emerson, the Curry, and Colum-

FIVE PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF SPEECH 307

bia schools. According to some of his contemporaries, he was the most
popular reader of his day.29

Though Powers' chief occupation was that of a dramatic reader, he
was engaged as a teacher by both Emerson College and the School of
Expression. First he taught for Emerson, then for Curry; later he
taught a graduate course in platform art for Emerson College before he
opened his own school in 1904.30 Apparently Powers* work was har-
monious with the teachings of both these schools although each claimed
to be original and individual.

According to those associated with Powers as teachers in the early
days of his own school, Powers was not happy in the other schools. As
a very young man he had developed an individual technique of imper-
sonating all the characters in a play or story. This style, which he
called "monacting," he taught for Emerson and Curry. Although his
teaching was acceptable to both schools, he was not satisfied. During
his career as reader and teacher he had been formulating his own
philosophy of speech education from which he believed all speech
arts should be taught.31

When Powers and his wife, Carol Hoyt Powers, organized the School
of the Spoken Word, it was their intention to maintain a small enroll-
ment and to do a large part of the teaching themselves. They bought
a house in a Boston residential district, remodeled it for a school, and
never allowed the institution to outgrow its home. At first they taught
six sections of fourteen students each. Later, when they had some ca-
pable graduates to employ as teachers, they added more sections, but
the enrollment never exceeded two hundred. From the beginning,
students were carefully selected. Since the aim was to develop artistic
platform readers, a student was not permitted to return unless he
showed talent and satisfactory progress.32 From 1904 to his death in
1920, Leland Powers was active as a teacher and administrator in the
school he founded.

Chief Similarities Among the Schools 33
Curry reduced the formula for improvement of expression to three
basic methods: stimulating the "cause/' developing the organic means,
"anSTsecurirlg aHGetfer knowledge of the right modes of execution. Al-
though none of the others stated these principles so succinctly, the
Shoemakers, Emerson and his followers, and Powers agreed with these
basic methods in theory and practice. The spokesmen for^jJl five
schools described the "cause" of expression "asTiaSital. They advocated
freeing the voice and body from habit and making them responsive
agents of the "mental cause." They all recommended practicing basic
exercises for voice, action, and interpretation which were believed to

308

RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

give the student mastery of essential forms of experience and corre-
sponding actions for communication. They were alike in explaining that
all faults of delivery, all faults of voice can be traced directly or in-
directly to wrong actions of the mind. To them it was axiomatic that
expression is the result not of physical, but of psychic action at the
moment of utterance.

In the teaching of voice development, all five schools showed an
-advance over purely mechanical techniques. The kind and amount of
voice training differed somewhat from school to school, but in general
the training consisted of drill routine to establish good habits of posture,
relaxation, breathing, and articulation. In addition the students recited
much lyric poetry selected for its affective and imaginative content to
stimulate vocal responsiveness. Voice practice also included saying
conversational sentences. Apparently the teachers recognized that there
was no automatic carry-over from drill on isolated syllables and lyric
poetry to everyday speech.

Another important similarity among the schools is that Delsarte's
charts formed the basis of action study. There was, however, more
change within the schools in the way action was taught than in any

CINTRR OF

V&&HT {"*"*

HEEL

CENTED,

TOE

CORRESPONDING
ASPECT OF MAN1?
BElKKa

&ACK
FOOT

SUDDEN
WEAKNESS OR
DEPRESSION

REFLECTION

DEFIANCE

MENTAL,

BOTH
FEET

SUBSERVIENCE

PHYSICAL EASE

HESITATION

MORAL

PROMT
FOOT

ARRESTED
INTENTION

ANIMATED
ATTENTION OR
INTEREST

VEHEMENCE

VITAL

Delsarte's Foot Chart as Taught by Emerson and Curry.

CENTER OF
WEIGHT f*"

WEEL

ARCM

BALL

BACK
FOOT

PROSTRATION

REFLECTION

DEFIANCE

MENTAL

BOTH
FEET

RESPECT

VULGAR EASE

INDECISION

MORAL

FRONT
FOOT

SUSPENSE

ANIMATED
ATTENTION

EXPLOSION

VITAL

MENTAL,

MORAL

VITAL

J DOMINANT
ELEMENT OP

TatNiT** or CAU«E

FIG. 2. Delsarte's Foot Chart as Taught by Powers.

FIVE PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF SPEECH 309

other single area of instruction. The Shoemaker school, opening before
MacKaye had taught Delsartes theories in America, at first taught
physical education as a way of developing health, freedom, and poise;
later it added Delsarte's systematic instruction. Emerson, Blood and
Riley, and Curry, all had studied Delsarte before they opened their
schools. Each of them, however, tried teaching according to Delsarte's
principles and attempted to stimulate proper physical responses in-
directly before they changed their methods and taught the charts as
such. Powers, who founded his school after the others had begun
specific instruction in Delsarte, taught only the action charts. Each
school modified the charts in a few details, but none of them made
fundamental changes. All of them claimed that the Delsarte exercises
were practiced to free the body from restrictive habits so that it could
respond freely and spontaneously to what they termed "mental cause."7

As formal interpretation, the schools agreed on at least these seven
""prmciples. First, for true expression, the whole man must speak through
all his being. Second, the powers of his mind must act simultaneously
and spontaneously at the moment of expression. Third, the voice and
actions must be responsive and subservient to the idea being expressed.
Fourth, technique must, therefore, be developed through careful prac-
tice. Fifth, problems to challenge the students' thinking should be
assigned. Sixth, principles should be explained only after the student
has already demonstrated them through a process of trial and error.
And, finally, although these teachers believed in the existence of a
sort of Platonic ideal standard, they repeatedly emphasized the im-
portance of individual differences.

As there was agreement about what constituted desirable delivery,
so was there agreement about what constituted undesirable delivery.
The teachers in the five schools looked with complete disfavor on a
mechanical style in which the speaker used artificial voice patterns or
stereotyped postures. While they all believed that students could be
stimulated by observing a good performance, they frowned on the
copying of external forms.

The favorite adjective used by the spokesmen for these schools to
describe desirable delivery, was "natural/' As they used the word,
"natural" meant a quality like that of conversation. It also meant a style
in which the speaker was free from personal eccentricities and ob-
trusive habits; it did not, however, preclude a studied technique.

In each school the criteria for satisfactory performance were said
to be simplicity and directness. It must be recognized, of course, that
what is simple and direct to one person may not seem so to another,
or to a person of another time. Accordingly they taught principles
which they believed facilitated the use of speech as a social art. None

310 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

of them prescribed rules. Instead, they advocated genuine responsive-
ness to active and present motivations.

Principles of the Schools

The Shoemakers

J. W. Shoemaker approached his work, not as an artist or an edu-
cational philosopher, but as a working teacher. He was not trying to
create something new; he was trying to use the best pedagogical
methods he knew. In his only major publication Practical Elocution*4'
Shoemaker defined elocution as the natural expression of thought by
speech and gesture. In a comparatively brief, simply written textbook,
he attempted to explain the principles and methods of effective ex-
pression.

The point of departure in Shoemaker's book is the one most familiar
today: all speech style should be based on that of conversation. As
Shoemaker expressed it, conversation contains "the germs of all speech
and action, and therefore constitutes the basis of oratorical and dra-
matic delivery." 35 The habits acquired in daily conversation are
consequently of the utmost importance and if any habits of voice,
articulation, or action are faulty they must be corrected. Proceeding
on the belief that reading and public address should be "noble con-
versation," 36 Shoemaker devoted one section of his book to explaining
principles of voice, gesture, and oral interpretation and the brief
section following to methods of instruction. The third section is an
anthology of prose and poetry for oral reading.

One idea fundamental to all the Shoemaker teachings is that "correct
elocutionary training is the subordination of the entire physical being
to the service of mind and spirit, thought being the product of the
inner or spiritual man, and speech and gesture its natural outlet
through the exterior or physical man." 37

In explaining both theory and methods, Shoemaker followed this
basic premise. In each phase of study he described the normal physical
and psychological condition and then explained how to develop skill
in communication. Hence the section on voice study included the struc-
ture of the instrument, its use, management, anatomy, physiology, and
hygiene. The aims listed for vocal development were to secure purity,
power, and flexibility. Shoemaker taught that gesture should follow not
rules, but natural laws. Its purpose is to supplement speech and by its
added grace, emphasis, and illustration, furnish a complete thought to
the hearers.38 While Shoemaker advocated the development of tech-
nique in the use of voice and body for oral expression, he also cautioned
his students that no skill, however artful, can substitute for intelligence

FIVE PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF SPEECH 311

and spirit in oral expression. He therefore recommended that each
selection be thoroughly analyzed as to language and purpose. The
student should be able to answer questions such as the following: What
is the principal thought? What are the subordinate ideas and how are
they related to the principal thought? What was the probable state of
the author's mind when he expressed the thought? How should the
student himself feel, and how would he have expressed the same senti-
ments in similar circumstances? 39 It was Shoemaker's thesis that in
answering these questions the student would develop the comprehen-
sion and sympathy necessary for interpreting literature.

The approach and content of Practical Elocution actually represents
the school's teaching. Similar ideas are presented in explanatory essays
in many of the school's annual catalogs.40 The volume itself was used
as a textbook until the school was disbanded.41

Although there is much the same basic philosophy in Advanced
Elocution*2 the only textbook written by Mrs. J. W. Shoemaker, the
book lacks the simple directness of Practical Elocution. The later
volume was written to supplement, not to supersede, the earlier. In the
introductory explanation of expression, Mrs. Shoemaker used a Del-
sartian description of the three-sided nature of man.43 Moses True
Brown, who had taught briefly at the National School, was cited as the
authority on Delsarte. In applying the idea of the trinity of man to
expression, Mrs. Shoemaker explained that through the sensitive or
physical phase, man receives impressions; through the intellectual and
spiritual phases, man interprets impressions in the light of experience.
These impressions in turn are communicated through the physical body
by means of voice and action.

Advanced Elocution is divided into four sections. The first two treat
voice, the third is devoted to action, and the fourth is an anthology of
selections. The aim of the drills and exercises was to enable the speaker
to convey to others "what lie himself understands, feels, and desires;
for the agents of Expression are now supposed to act reciprocally with
Intellect, Sensibility, and Will." 44 In explaining voice exercises and in
giving directions for educational gymnastics Mrs. Shoemaker wrote
what could be considered mechanical drills. Her introduction, how-
ever, indicates that vocal drill, like physical drill, should not be di-
vorced from meaning. The aim of all practice should be to make the
communication truly expressive of the speaker's impression.45 Perhaps
her attitude toward these drills was more scientific than mechanical.
A description of the voice class given in an 1884 catalog indicates that
the aim of developing the several qualities of voice, such as orotund
and pectoral and of practicing effusive and explosive breathing,46 was
to secure the most thorough command of the vocal instrument.47 Drills

312

RHETOKIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

on basic bodily positions, attitudes and gestures,48 however mechanical
the printed descriptions, were taught for the stated purpose of develop-
ing the vigor, freedom, and control needed by the body as an instru-
ment of expression.49

FIG. 3. Delsartian body poses to express sentiment as taught at the National School.
Taken from Advanced Elocution, pp. 234-235.

Emerson

Emerson and his immediate successor, Henry Lawrence Southwick,
became identified with Emerson's theories of the evolution of expres-
sion and with the series of textbooks called The Evolution of Expres-
sion.50 According to Emerson, all art reveals the development of the
mind of the race and that of each, individual in the race. It is evident
that he borrowed and rephrased HaeckeFs theory that the individual
in its ontogony recapitulates its philogony.

Emerson's theory of evolution was that the mind (and hence all art)
develops in four stages or planes. Each plane consists of four steps.
But each of these four steps is made up of the same four steps. A rough
analogy can be made to a picture which contains a smaller representa-
tion of the same picture. As long as another picture can be discerned
there is a repetition on a different scale of the first picture.

FIVE PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF SPEECH

313

Emerson's system of evolution, accordingly, contains sixteen steps,
the four basic planes of which are: animation or the whole; attraction
or the parts; selection or relation of parts to the whole; and separation
or relation of part to part. On each of the four levels these same four
stages were supposedly further refined as the student developed his
power to understand and express.

3HT PAP*T TO PART

4 SEPARATION
3 SELECTION
1 ATTRACTION
1 ANIMATION

INTELLECT
WILL
FEELINGS
CONSCIOUSNESS

4 PAP.T TO PAP.T
3. PART TO \VHOLE
1 PART
1. WHOLE

PART TO \VWOLE

A "SEPARATION
% SELECTION
2 ATTRACTION
1 ANIMATION

INTELLECT

WILL
FEELINGS
CONSCIOUSNESS

4 PAtVT TO DART
3, PAPCT TO WHOLE
2 PAO.T
I X^WOLE

4, SEPARATION
3 SELECTION
7. ATTRACTION
«. ANIMATION

INTELLECT
WILL

FEELINGS
CONSCIOUSNESS

4 PART TO PART
a. PART TO WWOLE
7. PART
1 V/MOLE

I \VWOLE

4 SEPARATION!
m SELECTION
7. ATTRACTION
1 ANtMATVON

INTELLECT
WILL
PEELINGS

CONSCIOUSNESS

4 PART TO PART
ft. PART TO WV4OLE.
1 PART
I \VWOLE

FIG. 4. Emerson's Evolution of Expression.

Basic loJEmersjoa's, theory was title belief that expression is necessary
for impression Just as impression is neces^ry for expression. He be-
lieved that in the act of expresion the student gained insight as well as
technique, and through insight was self-propelled to the next stage of
evolution.

The criterion for choosing the literary selections in Emerson's text-
books was provided by his transcendental philosophy that a person be-
comes what he thinks. Emerson, therefore, chose didactic material
which he believed would enrich personality and would help the soul
evolve closer to the Over-Soul.51 Each step in the preparation and de-
livery of the proper kind of literature was supposed to contribute to
evolutionary growth.

Emerson wanted to elevate elocution from the level of a parlor trick
to a social art. For that reason he christened his work with the more

314 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

reputable, though misleading, title of "oratory " Both students and
teachers, however, customarily used the word "rendering" when speak-
ing of oral interpretation.

In addition to the four books in The Evolution of Expression series,
Emerson later published four books called The Perfective Laws of
Art.52 These books were little used as textbooks in the school. Their
significance now lies not in what they say, but rather in Emerson's
stated purpose in preparing them. His avowed, if unfulfilled, intention
was to show his concern with the fullest development of the individual
and not with a set of rules.

Emerson's style in these books was a barrier to the achievement of
his purpose even among those who believed in his evolutionary theory
of art. His extravagantly mystic terminology has to be accepted more
in faith than by reason. Although Emerson's writings may not be en-
tirely clear to the modern reader, they reveal the sincerity of his
efforts to stimulate his students to meticulous analysis and responsive
interpretation of literature.

The Emerson system of voice training is based on his general theory
of growth. In accordance with his stages of growth in oral interpreta-
tion, he divided his voice work into four parts.53 In the first stage the
work was to develop freedom, support, openness, and correct formation
of speech sounds. In the second stage there were exercises for two
kinds of inflections and for what he called "elasticity" or "flexibility,"
and for power. In these two stages Emerson intended to show the
relation of physiology to voice. In the next two he attempted to show
the relation of psychology to voice. In them were to be developed
facility in combining elements of speech and responsiveness in musical
quality. Although Emerson never published an explanation of the de-
tails of his method, he claimed to be able to induce in the student such
states of mind as would operate through the cranial nerves directly on
the vocal organs and instantly control their activity.54 The voice obeyed
the mind.

In agreement with one of the main tenets of his educational phi-
losophy, Emerson's central theory of body culture was that thought has
the power to mould outward form.55 In his school three kinds of
physical culture were taught. All were supposed to develop bodily
responsiveness. All of them were based on principles of Delsarte, but
only after Emerson's retirement was a course taught which used the
Delsarte charts.56 Even then the instructors made a conscious effort to
avoid the recognized danger of mechanical gesture. They believed that
if gesture were taught in accordance with a sound pedagogy based on
art, psychology, and the best practices of physical training no artificial-
ity would result.

FIVE PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF SPEECH 315

Blood and Riley

Closest to Emerson College from point of view of educational
theories is the Columbia School of Oratory. Its educational philosophy,
psychology, and teaching methods were closely patterned on the par-
ent Institution. The Evolution of Expression was the basis for the
teaching of courses in oral interpretation which were called "render-
ing" and "progressive steps in rendering." 57 After 1900 "literary inter-
pretation" took the place of "rendering" in course titles, but the latter
term remained in use as a synonym in course descriptions.

In 1894 Emerson's books were supplemented by The Psychological
Development of Expression™ a four-volume series edited by Blood and
Riley. It copied Emerson, but the authors did attempt to modernize
the terminology and explanations. Their continued use of the basic
premise that all education has four planes of four steps each prevented
their making any significant advancement.

The only difference between the Columbia system and that of Emer-
sonjvas in terminology. The Columbia authors renamed the four planes
as follows: intellect, emotion, will, and physique. In each plane these
classifications were given secondary explanatory heads. But as in the
Emerson explanations, mental growth was said to begin with interest in
communicating simple ideas and images chiefly for entertainment and
to progress to the highest stage which was inspiring belief in moral
concepts. Emerson insisted that his chapter headings were to be used
only by the teacher as criteria in judging the pupil's development.
Blood and Riley, however, proposed to make their topics direct goals
for the student himself. Each chapter has an explanation concerning
"desired action of the student's mind" and "desired effect upon the
student's rendering." Their attitude was more realistic than that of
Emerson, for in both schools the books were in the possession of the
students. Most of the explanatory subtopics in The Psychological De-
velopment of Expression are readily intelligible. Two representative
examples are "The seeing of images while speaking" and "Comparative
directness— Simple colloquial form." Blood and Riley, furthermore,
attempted to use standard psychological terminology. Occasionally,
especially in volume four, Emerson's vague, transcendental terms were
used, as for example: "suggestiveness" and "radiation through body and
voice."

Curry

Curry, Kke Em^cmyJxied tp base his philosophy of art on nature.
Hejiowever, borrowed not from the natural scientists, but from phi-
losonhers. He drew ideas from Plato, Schiller, Spencer, Hegel, Kant,

316 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Comenius, Pestalozzi, and Froebel. These ideas were freely adapted
and interpreted to suit his purposes and needs. Curry's central belief
was that there is a direct correspondence between art and nature.^

According to this theory, growth in art, as in nature, takes place in
accordance with four principles: unity, freedom, harmony, and orig-
inality. By unity, he meant growth from one center, from one impres-
sion.60 By freedom, he meant the spontaneous impulse to unfold.61 By
harmony, he meant the co-ordination of the spontaneous impulse.62 And
by originality, he meant the correspondence between inner activity and
outer motion.63

While Curry believed that art is innate and developed out of the play
impulse, he also insisted that art must be play under the influence of
order. Curry classified vocal expression, when not perverted, as art
because like all true arts it reveals the human soul. But unlike some of
the arts, vocal expression reveals the soul directly. Like the other arts
it is founded on communion of minds. By means of it, one man can
awaken in another the same faculties which are active in his own.
When the speaker appeals to the imagination and sympathy of his
hearers he awakens their creative ability.

According to one of Curry's early graduates,64 the heart of Curry's
method lay in the study of the imagination and what he called "dra-
matic instinct/' Much of the student's ability to interpret, Curry be-
lieved, depended on his power of creating images in his own mind and
on his power of identifying himself with the literature being read.

Curry's general principles are explained in The Frounce of Expres-
sion. Many other theories regarding specific application to oral interpre-
tation are set forth in his other nine major textbooks. Since he had no
methodic system, he published no simple exposition of his teaching
methods, as Emerson did in Evolution of Expression. Since he wrote so
many books and wrote them while teaching in several schools and
while being engaged in lecturing and in other enterprises, Curry's
publications suffer from repetition, obscurity, and over-elaboration.

As explained in several of his books, and particularly in Mind and
Voice, Curry believed that the voice as a natural agent should be char-
acterized by spontaneity, freedom, simplicity, and unity.65 As he saw
it, such characteristics can be achieved only when there is spontaneous
action of the faculties. Hence, Curry worked out what he believed to
be a psychological, not merely a technical, method of developing the
voice. He was an advocate of using literary passages which stimulate
emotions of pleasurable intensity which in turn create conditions fav-
orable to good tone. Material evoking joy and laughter was supposed to
bring about centrality of motor power and unconscious coordination of
parts. Practice of such material was said to develop mental as well as

FIVE PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF SPEECH 317

physical habits to bring about retention of breath, an open tone pas-
sage, and co-ordination with the vocal bands. When properly trained,
the voice, according to Curry, suggests the activities of thought, imagi-
nation and feeling.66

To establish normal conditions of the body Curry stated that the
student must understand three truths. Action is spontaneous. It pre-
cedes speech. It is not necessarily motion or gestures; it may be attitudes^
and bearing.67 Furthermore, no rules should be made for the kind of
gestures for certain classes of ideas. All action is personal. If a student
is freed from repressions and if "dramatic instinct" is awakened, he
will gain greater expressive action of the body. While Curry rejected
Delsarte's "science" of the trinities in action training, he accepted Del-
sarte's two principles of body training. Following Delsarte he taught
that the whole body must be trained and that work must be given in
the fundamentals of each agent of bodily expression.68

Powers

Powers' school differed from those of his former associates, Curry
and Emerson, in the extent to which his philosophy was based on the
supposed correspondence between the infinite and the finite. Powers
believed that infinite wisdom, love, and power are reflected in man and
in the manifestations of his mind: "if we can agree that the universe
rightly understood is an expression of its Cause69 and that it reflects
or indicates method or activity or correspondency . . . again manifested
in our own minds and thought-processes and their expressional activ-
ities, then we can . . . accept this discovered method as obedient to
universal law." 70 Everything that Powers wrote is an explanation or an
elaboration of this statement. In it are indicated his philosophy, his
psychological theories, and his ideas of the cause, nature, and tech-
nique of expression.

Because Powers believed that the universe had a three-fold nature
in which the elements were co-existent, co-operative, and co-essential,
his explanations, like his trinities, have no beginning or end. Typical
of his reasoning in a circle is his attempt to define the nature of expres-
sion. He dogmatically asserted that "expression must necessarily be
mental because its cause is in mind," 71 Then, instead of offering evi-
dence to support his second premise, Powers merely reversed the order
of the propositions and asserted that "Cause is in the mind because
expression is mental/' 72

The most peculiar aspect of Powers' philosophy of education lay in
his belief that every individual possesses at birth all the knowledge he
will ever possess.73 Powers therefore argued that speech education
must be a process freeing the avenues of expression and eliminating

318

RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

the barriers to clear expression. The study of expression must be train-
ing in a few fundamentals concerning the nature of thought and how
it is embodied in other minds. Since in oral interpretation the media of
expression are voice and body, Powers asserted that technical training
must have the aim of "dematerializing" these physical agents.74 He did
not believe in a partnership between the mind and body. In philosophy
Powers was an idealistic monist His explanation was that though the
material senses recognize the body, the mind recognizes only the em-
bodiment of an idea.75

For Powers the art of oral interpretation was the art of embodying
the spirit and essence of literature. Such embodiment he believed pos-
sible only when the interpreter understood the thoughts and feelings
recorded in his material and when the mental concept was carried out
through the trained and obedient voice and body.76 For him the con-
cept and the expression were essentially the same, each incomplete
without the other,77

FOO.M

WISDOM

FIG. 5. Powers' Trinities of Cause.

FIVE PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF SPEECH

319

Powers explained that all literature is the written embodiment of the
three factors of thought's trinity. All mental activity reflects the same
factors: the reflective factor, which conceives or plans; the affective
factor, which chooses and purposes; and the effective factor which
carries the plan and purpose to fulfillment. In any piece of literature
one factor is dominant and the other two subordinate. As he saw it,
the function of the interpreter is to reveal this relationship.78

The prime purpose of the course in interpretation at Powers' school
was to awaken the student's vitality of thought. To begin with, there
was drill on literature written to arouse people to action. Such drill
would, Powers held, automatically stir vitality of thought because of
the doctrine of correspondences. According to this doctrine, the au-
thor's vital purpose would stimulate the vital factor in the reader's
mind.79 He believed, too, that the development of any ability can come
only through practice. His motto was "To do is to know." 80

Powers taught that through technique and skill, the voice and
body became obedient to thought.81 In advocating technique, Powers
did not deny the value of spontaneity. But he insisted that the in-

FIG. 6. Powers' Trinities of Manifestation*

320 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

terpreter, like any artist, can be spontaneous only after he has mas-
tered his tools— his voice and body.82

A good voice, according to Powers, is latent in every individual;
therefore voice training is essentially voice freeing. In such training the
teacher must work personally with the student. Powers believed that
little should be written about voice training because such writing is too
open to misunderstanding.83

The teacher's function in voice training, as Powers expounded it,
is to explain every exercise and see that it is correctly practiced. The
teacher, also, can help free the student of fear and of bad habits.84
The teacher should watch for and encourage signs of vitality of thought,
and by encouraging a repetition of vital expression help make the
student's material agent, the voice, obey his mind.85

Three conditions which Powers held to be indispensable to proper
voice production were correct breath control, voice support, and proper
direction of tone. The latter, he admitted, was inaccurate, but he be-
lieved the concept useful in freeing the tone. Together these three
could, by stimulating the imagination, turn the student's attention
away from possible throat-consciousness which was said to be the
source of many vocal disturbances.86

The body, as the second medium through which the oral interpreter
must embody his ideas, presents three major technical difficulties: (1)
the body claims to have an existence apart from the mind; accordingly
its sensations and nerve excitements produce unnecessary actions; (2)
the inertia of the body resists thought; (3) fear causes too much bodily
relaxation or tension. These difficulties, Powers held, could be over-
come by drilling according to certain universal principles.

These principles Powers adapted from Delsarte, but he made some
changes because he thought that Delsarte had confused sensation with
vitality of thought. The strength of Delsarte's theories, as Powers evalu-
ated them, lay in their philosophy of correspondences. Another Del-
sarte theory to which Powers ascribed importance was that, though
there are many accidental actions, there are a few fundamental actions
which are universal. Upon the theory of universal applicability of
fundamental actions, Powers built Jhe action charts which were taught
in his school. All the charts were supposed to illustrate theTEfee "basic
laws of action: (1) unfoldment in sequence; (2) opposition or balance
in action; and (3) direction of motion according to the dominant
mental factor. The general purpose of all action study in the Powers
school was to gain technical facility and to make the body spontane-
ously obedient to vitalized thought

FIVE PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF SPEECH 321

Aims and Methods

The founders and proprietors of the five leading speech schools in
the United States between 1870 and 1920 appropriated a watered-down
transcendentalism for their philosophy; they adapted the psychological
theories of the mid-nineteenth century for their pedagogical principles.
Then, on the basis of their own backgrounds and interests, four of the
five developed the theories with which their schools became identified.
The fifth was a western offspring of its Bostonian parent institution.

The chief aims of the five schools were alike. They agreed that the
general ends of all education should be development of character and
enrichment of personality. They further agreed that study of uplifting
literature was one of the best means of attaining those ends. Another
general aim was to stimulate initiative and the free play of individuality.
With regard to voice training, the central purpose in all the schools was
to free the voice from restricting habits and tension and to develop
clear articulation and flexibility in the use of pitch, rate, volume, and
quality. In action training the schools tried to help the student over-
come habits which might interfere with the expression of thought and
feeling; they tried to give exercises which would induce freedom and
co-ordination. The aim in both voice and body training was to achieve
responsiveness and technical facility.

The differences in aims were largely those of emphasis. Shoemaker,
more than the others, stressed correct articulation, enunciation, and
pronunciation. Both Emerson and his followers placed evolutionary
progress through art at the top of the list of goals. Curry was anxious
to develop what he called the natural languages (the vocal, the verbal,
and the pantomimic), according to the laws of nature. Since the gen-
eral aim of the Powers' school was more limited than the others, the
specific aims were also more circumscribed. Powers, unlike the others,
was little interested in educating teachers. His school was primarily to
develop platform readers. The aims of each course were directed to-
ward professional excellence. Powers' religious belief led him to advo-
cate "dematerializing" the physical agents. Like Curry, however, who
wanted the voice and body to be bridges over which thought and
emotion pass, Powers sought to make the material media avenues, not
barriers, to thought.

The methods used in the five schools were also very much alike. They
agreed that in all phases of the work teachers should be helpful guides
who encourage students by making them conscious of proper ideals and
of their own accomplishments, however slight. In teaching all subjects
the teachers must set problems to suit the students* needs and abilities.
In oral interpretation the teacher should ask questions to cause the stu-

322 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

dents to concentrate, to analyze, and to respond sincerely to the author's
purpose. In voice training the teacher should demonstrate what cannot
be explained on paper and guide the students' ear training. In body
training the teachers demonstrated the exercises, gestures, positions,
and bearings. They also used quotations and dramatic situations to
stimulate responses.

There were more differences of method among the schools than in
aims. The Shoemakers began teaching when they were very young;
they were dedicated to no system so they changed their methods when
they found what they thought might be an improvement. When they
opened their school they taught gymnastics to develop health, vigor,
and freedom. They also taught "position/' that is walking and standing;
movements of the head, arms, and legs in conversational, oratorical,
and dramatic gestures; and finally unimpassioned and impassioned
facial expression. Later Mrs. Shoemaker introduced aesthetic physical
culture and Delsarte's action charts. The students practiced posing
according to sentiment and gave demonstrations for public entertain-
ments. Emerson and Curry always used Delsarte's principles and
eventually attempted to use Delsarte methods. Emerson students also
gave demonstrations with groups of girls gesturing together and assum-
ing similar attitudes. The Currys were opposed to such methods, which
Mrs. Curry called "statue posing." In voice training Emerson attributed
to the nares the central place in tone production and attempted by some
method not recorded to get his students to center their voices in the
nares. More than any of the other teachers, Curry stressed the need to
hold attention on one thought and to make quick transitions to the next
point of concentration while reading. Curry is also the only one who, in
print at least, discussed the details of eye-span training as an essential
to oral interpretation. Possibly this is because Curry students usually
held a book while reading in public; the other schools encouraged
memorization. Powers demanded it; his students never appeared in
recital using a book.

In a sense the schools anticipated the "progressive" educational move-
ment whose method was to learn to do by doing. Like Froebel, they
believed that education should be emancipation. Through studies re-
sembling play, they believed that creative energies, especially the
imagination, could be awakened. According to their theories and to the
teaching methods they attempted to use, real education does not con-
sist in acquiring facts; it consists in acquiring skill in execution. It was
their contention that such skills could be acquired only if educational
methods returned to nature and stimulated growth from within. They
insisted that only if a person received accurate vivid impressions could
he respond with true spontaneous expression.

FIVE PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF SPEECH 323

Though all of these schools lagged behind the contemporary devel-
opments in psychology, they all attempted to encourage communication
from subjective understanding and motivation rather than to inculcate
a perfected technical display. Each school had peculiarities, some of
them ridiculous by our present-day standards. But they were innova-
tors and contributors to the movement which fostered a psychological
approach to the teaching of speech.

Notes

1. Allan Nevms, The Emergence of Modem America-1865-1878 (New York,
1927), p. 203.

2. Ibid., p. 212

3. Steele MacKaye came back from France in 1870 to raise money to aid
French victims of the Franco-Prussian War by lecturing on Delsarte.

4. Samuel Silas Curry, The Province of Expression, A Search for Principles
Underlying Adequate Methods of Developing Dramatic and Oratoric Delivery
(Boston, 1891), p. 338.

5. William Joseph Farma, "A Study in Comparative Speech Forms of De-
livery with Special Reference to Interpretative Reading/* unpublished Ph.D. dis-
sertation, Wisconsin, 1946, p. 451. Farma is quoting an article in Werner's Voice
Magazine, III (1881), 143-144, reprinted from an article in the Boston Herald, n.d.

6. Ibid., pp. 542-453; and Boston University Yearbook, 1873-1880, Vols. I-VIII.

7. Farma, op. cit., p, 451, citing Fred Winslow Adams, "Boston as an Elocu-
tionary Center," Werners Voice Magazine, XVI (April, 1894), 114-115.

8. The Shoemakers are the only ones in the group of teachers being studied in
this essay who were not directly influenced by Monroe.

9. Catalogue of the National School of Elocution and Oratory for 1874, p, 14.

10. Catalogue of the National School, 1875, p. 17.

11. Interview with Dora Shoemaker, June, 1950.

12. Catalogue of the National School, 1874, pp. 14-15.

13. In this period Moses True Brown of Boston, a former student of Lewis
Monroe, joined the faculty and taught courses in Delsarte for two years.

14. Catalogue of the National School, 1874, p. 35.

15. Catalogue of the National School, 1878, p. 28.

16. "History of Emerson College/' Emerson College Magazine, I (December,
1892), 2; and II (December, 1893), 2.

17. Untitled article quoting obituary in the Boston Post, Emerson College Maga-
zine, XVII (December, 1908), 66-69.

18. "History of Emerson College/' loc. cit.

19. Emerson College Magazine, III (December, 1894), 2-3.

20. Ibid., XVII (March, 1909), 215.

21. Henry L. Southwick, "The Exceptional," Emerson College Magazine,
XXVIII (November, 1919), 215.

22. Annual Catalogue and Announcement of the Columbia School of Oratory,
Physical Culture and Dramatic Art (1895), p. 6.

23. See annual catalogs for the Columbia School, 1896-1927.

24. According to Binney Gunmson, an early graduate, later teacher, and dean of
the School of Expression, Curry did not use his own name in the title because he
hoped to find a benefactor who would endow the school. Curry believed that only ^
an endowed school could operate successfully on a high educational plane. /^

25. Catalogue of the School of Expression, 1906, p. 5.

26. Not to be confused with the Boston School of Oratory which Emerson Col-
lege acquired.

324 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

27. Who's Who in America (1920-1921).

28. Annual Catalogue of the School of Expression, 1899, p. 29.

29. Harry S. Ross, "Address," Emerson Quarterly, I (February, 1921), 71-76;
and Samuel Silas Curry, "The Monologue as a Dramatic Form/' Expression, II
(September, 1896), 209-210.

30. Unsigned announcement, "The Graduate Course in Platform Art," Emerson
College Magazine, X (May, 1902), n.p.; Annual Catalogue of the School of Ex-
pression, 1899, n.p.; and unsigned announcement, "Leland T, Powers/' Expression,
VII (Spring, 1899), n.p.

31. Interviews with Hortense Creede Railsback in 1944, with Adele Hoose Lee
in 1945, and with Elizabeth Pooler Rice in 1945.

32. Ibid.

33. The conclusions in this section are based on a comparison of the books,
articles, and published speeches of the schools* founders and of their colleagues and
their immediate successors. Relatively complete files of the catalogs and other
institutional publications were also studied. Other primary sources were interviews
and students' notebooks. See particularly, Edyth Renshaw "Three Schools of
Speech: The Emerson College of Oratory, The School of Expression, and The
Leland Powers School of the Spoken Word," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Columbia, 1950.

34. Practical Elocution for Use in Colleges and Schools and by Private Students
(Philadelphia, 1880).

35. Ibid., p. 23.

36. Ibid, p. 34.

37. Ibid., p. 20.

38. Ibid., p. 141.

39. Ibid., p 112.

40. Catalogue of the National School of Elocution and Oratory, 1889, pp. 9,
13; 1891, p. 9; 1893, p. 9; 1896, p. 17; 1900, p. 12.

41. Interview with Dora Shoemaker, June, 1950.

42. Mrs. J. W. Shoemaker, aided by Ceorge B. Hynson and John H. Betchel,
Advanced Elocution Designed as a Practical Treatise for Teachers and Students in
Vocal Training, Physical Culture and Gesture (Philadelphia, 1896).

43. Ibid,, pp. 13-15.

44. Ibid., p. 276.

45. Ibid., p. 17.

46. Ibid., pp. 23-170.

47. Catalogue of the National School of Elocution and Oratory, 1895, p. 6.

48. Advanced Elocution, pp. 175-280. Most of the gestures described are the
same as those usually attributed to Delsarte.

49. Catalogue of the National School of Elocution and Oratory, 1895, p. 11.

50. Charles Wesley Emerson, The Evolution of Expression, A Compilation of
Selections Illustrating the Four Stages of Development in Art as Applied to Oratory,
4 vols., rev. ed. (Boston, 1892).

51. Charles Wesley Emerson, "The Cultivation of Voice," Emerson College
Magazine, I (April, 1893), 94.

52. Charles Wesley Emerson, The Sixte&n Perfective Laws of Art Applied to
Oratory, 4 vols. (Boston, 1892).

53. Charles Wesley Emerson, Psycho Vox or the Emerson System of Voice Cul-
ture (Boston, 1897).

54. Ibid., p. 100.

55. Charles Wesley Emerson, Expressive Physical Culture or Philosophy of Ges-
ture (Boston, 1900), p. 17.

56. Henry L. Southwick, "The Scholastic Year of 1903-04," Emerson College
Magazine, XII (May, 1904), 202.

57. See annual catalogs for the Columbia School, 1895-1903, for courses in
"rendering."

FIVE PRIVATE SCHOOLS OF SPEECH 325

58. The Psychological Development of Expression (Chicago, 1894), 4 vols.

59. The Province of Expression (Boston, 1891), p. 180.

60. Ibid., p. 172.

61. Lessons in Vocal Expression Processes of Thinking in the Modulation of the
Voice (Boston, 1895), pp. 14-15.

62. Mind and Voice, Principles and Methods in Vocal Training (Boston, 1910),
p. 215.

63. The Province of Expression, p. 180.

64. Bmney Gunnison, Interviews, August 1943 and 1944.

65. Mind and Voice, pp. 435-440.

66. Ibid., p. 441.

67. Foundations of Expression, Studies and Pwblems for Developing the Voice,
Body, and Mind in Reading and Speaking (Boston, 1920 ) , p. 292; and "Pantomimic
Expression/' manuscript notes for 1897-1898, pp. 5, 19.

68. Province of Expression, p. 353.

69. In writing of certain general principles and abstractions which he believed
to be universals, Powers always used capital letters His practice will be followed
in this essay.

70. Talks on Expression (Boston, 1917), pp. 66-67.

71. Ibid., p. 69.

72. Ibid.

73. Ibid.y p. 104.

74. Ibid., pp. 27-28.

75. Ibid., p. 52; and Leland Powers and Carol Hoyt Powers, Fundamentals of
Expression (Boston, 1916), p. 11.

76. Leland Powers, Practice Book (Boston, 1916), p. 28.

77. Talks on Expression, p. 82.

78. Practice Book, pp vii-ix; and Talks on Expression, pp. 7-8.

79. Practice Book, pp. v, x, 1-4.

80. Interview with Elizabeth Pooler Rice, August, 1945.

81. Fundamentals of Expression, pp. 12-14.

82. Ibid., p. 18.

83. Ibid., pp. 28-35.

84. Talks on Expression, pp. 39-44.

85. Practice Book, pp. v-vii.

86. Fundamentals of Expression, pp. 29-30.

Phonetics and Pronunciation

BERT EMSLEY
CHARLES K. THOMAS
CLAUDE SIFRITT

American linguistic phonetics is a subject which has taken on added
interest in the last generation or so as increased facilities for travel and
communication have made Americans more conscious of their mother
tongue. The roots of American phonetics, however, lie deep in the past,
on both sides of the Atlantic. Our study, consequently, will deal with
the background of scholarly investigation, chiefly American, but British
where relevant, by which since the eighteenth century phonetics has
made its gradually increasing contribution to speech education in
America. Some great men and many lesser ones have made their con-
tributions, but the present study deals more with movements than with
men.

What do we mean by phonetics? The Merriam Webster defines it as
the "science of speech sounds considered as elements of language," but
narrows the meaning of the adjective phonetic to spelling, alphabets,
and various kinds of symbolization "in which each letter always rep-
resents the same sound."

Phoneticians themselves use the adjective phonetic somewhat more
elastically. Some use the term phonemic in referring to the basic units,
or phonemes, which distinguish one word or utterance from another;
and the term phonetic,, or allophonic, to those variations in sound which
do not distinguish, but which depend on contextual or personal factors.
Thus the second sound in skin is the same phoneme as the first in kin,
but a different allophone because of the different phonetic context.
Other phoneticians use phonetic as a catchall term which avoids these
subtleties. Here we are concerned, within practical limits, with all
efforts to identify and indicate the speech sounds.

The plan of this entire work on American speech education sets our
practical limits. First, we restrict the scope to American phonetics and

326

PHONETICS AND PRONUNCIATION 327

pronunciation, except for immediate British and European back-
grounds. Second, we exclude experimental, or laboratory phonetics,
which is discussed in another chapter. Third, we shall touch only inci-
dentally on intonation, for intonation in English is a feature of the
phrase rather than of the word or the phoneme; it has more to do with
interpretation than with pronunciation.

The linguistic limitation, however, involves something more than an
analysis of sounds and symbols. There are significant historical, com-
parative, dialectal, and prescriptive problems. In the efforts to promote
one or another acceptable form of American speech, some notable
trends have been associated with phoneticians or orthoepists. We have
all been influenced, in more ways than we realize, by Noah Webster's
opinions. And to some extent William Tilly reaped where Joseph
Worcester sowed.

Though we cannot hope for a complete record, we can hope to invite
further study and give the reader some direction for it. With this in
mind, we shall concern ourselves with the following natural historical
divisions: British diacritics or orthoepy, mainly eighteenth century;
American and British phonotypy, mainly mid-nineteenth century;
American philology, mainly late nineteenth century; ideas reaching this
country in the present century from the International Phonetic Asso-
ciation; and recent linguistic geography and phonemics from American
sources, but of continental European inspiration. The field of Speech,
although it has had little to do with the origination and shaping of
these movements, has played an energetic part in assimilating, inte-
grating, and adapting them to the needs of its teachers, scientists, and
students.

English diacritical orthoepy may be described as orthography strug-
gling to become phonetics. Says Sheldon: x "By the end of the 18th
century the diacritical system for indicating the pronunciation had
been developed almost to the stage now current in commercial dic-
tionaries." Whether used in dictionaries, school readers, or elementary
language books, the Webster key and its like are excellent eighteenth-
century achievements.

For earlier periods the reader may consult Wheatley, Ellis, Lamport,
Krapp, McKnight, and others.2 We center on the eighteenth century
because it was the period when the efforts to "fix" the language came to
a head. Spelling was championed by Johnson's Dictionary of 1755,
pronunciation by Sheridan's in 1780. With few exceptions the ortho-
epists dedicated themselves to standardizing the orthography, undis-
turbed by phonetic innovations. English pronouncing lexicography

328 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

SCHEME OF THE ALPHABET,

Number ofjimple Sounds in our Tongue 28.

9 Vmels, 1115*3*16

hall hat hate beer note noofe bet fie bat

w y

&ort oo ihort ee

19 Confonants, eb ed ef eg ek el em en ep er es et ev ez ettT cth clh ezh ing«

2 Superfluous, c, which has the power of ek or eft ;
y, that of ek before u*

2 Compound^ _/, which ftands for *dfe/&.

y9 for & or ^z,

I No letter*, h, merely a mark of afpiration.

Confonants divided into Mutes and Semivowel*.
6 Mutes, eb ed eg ek ep et.

3 Pure Mutes, ek ep et.

3 Impure^ eb ed eg.

13 Semivowels, ef el em en er efs ev ez ettT eth e£b ezh mg,

9 Vocal9 el em en er ev ez eth ezh ing.
4 Afpirattd, ef efs ettt ejb.

Divided again into

4 Labial, eb ep ev ef.

8 Dental, ed et eth ettt ez efs ezh efe.
4 Palatine, eg ek el er.
3 JVi7/&/, em en ing.

FIG. 7. Scheme of the Alphabet. From Thomas Sheridan, A General Dictionary
of the English Language (London, 1780), p. 9.

began in this period. The titles of the following dictionaries, most of
them long and unwieldy, are omitted, but their contributions are often
the first of their kind:

1723: Thomas Dyche, accent marks

1740: Nathan Bailey, accent marks showing short and long vowels

1757: James Buchanan, occasional diacritic respelling

1764: William Johnston, diacritics and type variations

1766: James Buchanan, complete diacritic respelling, with omis-

sion of silent letters
1773: William Kenrick, vowels marked by numbers, syllables in-

dicated
1775: William Perry, Italian a, acute and grave accents

PHONETICS AND PRONUNCIATION 329

1780: Thomas Sheridan, no new methods, but first great pronounc-

ing dictionary with a descriptive tendency

1786: William Scott; pronunciation key line on vocabulary pages
1791: John Walker; synthesis of methods, prescriptive, most in-
fluential in America

In the nineteenth century American dictionaries, largely under the
influence of Walker, became prominent. A few British dictionaries are
listed with them because of their influence on Worcester, especially
with reference to the intermediate a of such words as ask, which,
says the Dictionary of American Biography, "was Worcester's one
permanent contribution to lexicography and the English language in
America."

1814: (4th ed. ), George Fulton and George Knight, intermediate a

1828: (first ed. 1798?), Stephen Jones, intermediate a

1828: Noah Webster, Italian a, spelling reform

1830: (1829?), Joseph E. Worcester, intermediate a, general or-

thoepy

1836: Benjamin H. Smart, intermediate a, orthoepy

1847: Chauncey A. Goodrich, Italian a} orthoepy

The persistence of diacritical orthoepy in recent works is well known.
Competent American scholars like Whitney, Funk, Kenyon, Greet,
Thorndike, and Barnhart have been associated with dictionaries which
contain at least one diacritical system, often the only one. The two
Thorndike series, by reducing the number of diacritics indicating vari-
ation in pronunciation, have come closest to developing a genuine
phonetic key; they were the first to introduce the phonetic schwa into
general dictionaries, an innovation which has since been copied by at
least two other dictionaries.3

sounds, that is phonemes, these dictionaries have been

more expert than in indicating them through phonemic or phonetic
symbols. A dominant trend, with some exceptions on the radio and
elocutionary fronts, has been the enlightened recognition of reputable
variants. Even in the eighteenth century there was much intelligent
discussion of pronunciation, although the discussion was relegated to
the not-widely-read introductions to the dictionaries. Sheridan, Walker,
Nares,4 and others also published similar material in separate orthoep-
ical works. Let us note again that the more objective, "natural" Sheri-
dan was less influential in the United States than the somewhat more
arbitrary Walker.

Orthoepical publications of a less familiar sort are to be found in
Buchanan's (anonymous) British Grammar of 1762, interesting for

330 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

methods rather than for basic phonetic knowledge, and Murray's fa-
mous Grammar of 1795, which followed Walker closely. An earlier
interest in phonetic analysis, spelling reform, and phonetic innovation
shows in the writings of Smith 1568, Hart 1569, Bullokar 1580, Gill 1619,
Butler 1634, Wallis 1653, and Wilkins 1668.5

A few survivals of this reform method carried over into the eighteenth
century. In contrast to the dominant trend toward fixing and ascertain-
ing language once for all, stood James Elphinston,6 who tried respelling
without new symbols in 1765, and Benjamin Franklin,7 who produced
a new alphabet in 1768. Joshua Steele 8 offered a few letters and honest
sentiments toward the same end in 1775. Franklin set off a long series
of American successors, some of them quite patriotic, culminating in
Andrew Comstock's 9 remarkably phonetic and patriotic, alphabet of
1846.

Comstock, however, belongs in the following period, as does his
master, James Rush,10 who in 1827 worked out a system with definite
phonetic terminology. But Rush and the great bulk of his followers
neither invented nor adopted a phonetic alphabet. Early American
elocutionists, like Ebenezer Porter 1824 and William Russell 1841,
naturally followed the Sheridan-Walker orthoepic. This tradition is
strikingly illustrated in the journals of elocution and the speech arts11
as late as the period from 1892 to 1915, when all articles on pronuncia-
tion remained orthoepic except an occasional stray one on Visible
Speech.

Schoolbooks, like grammars, are numerous from William Bullokar in
1580 and, in America, from Caleb Bingham in 1794. The schoolbooks
still use diacritical methods even when reading experts call them pho-
netic. The Edgeworths12 attempted a diacritic-phonetic alphabet in
1801, but fell back on the familiar markings.

Teaching apparently differed little from that of today. James Bu-
chanan's Complete English Scholar of 1753 began with monosyllables,
put together from the vowels and consonants, and taught spelling by
the "power of the letters/* These methods go back at least as far as the
Port Royalists of 1660 and strangely resemble modern phonics and
phonogram techniques.

When the orthoepists made phonetic analyses or recognized accept-
able pronunciations they labored earnestly but not usually in agree-
ment. Sheridan tallied 28 English sounds, Murray 36.13 Sheridan in
1780 ignored the Italian a in words like ask; Walker in 1791 opposed it;
whereas many less famous men from Mar chant in 1760 to Barclay14 in
1784 clearly recognized it. Nineteenth-century Americans were more
nearly in agreement, for the change in fashion took place between the
centuries. The intermediate a, already noted, was a compromise (ex-

PHONETICS AND PRONUNCIATION 331

cept possibly in New England ) then regarded more as medicine against
the Italian a than against the "flat" a of bad.

Of r Sheridan (1780) says, "This letter has always the same sound,
and is never silent." Marchant 1760? Franklin 1768, and Barlow15 1772
seem to agree. Grandgent16 cites many New England orthoepists,
including the early Webster, 1784, who said much the same, but gives
lists of mistakes which betray the opposite tendency. Here also the
change probably came between 1790 and 1820.

On tflong u' pronounced as a diphthong in such words as tune,
Sheridan supported a trend that is still favored in radio and among
elocutionists, though most Americans outside the South use a simple
vowel. This persistent diphthongal pronunciation is recognized in the
first phonetic dictionary, of 1855, along with some other elocutionary
features. On the other hand, Grandgent noted a New England fondness
for the pure [u] vowel after alveolar consonants, as in tune and duke,
going as far back as Franklin, 1768. Sheridan's assimilated juke for
duke seems not to have had much vogue south of the Canadian border,
but Walker's [djuk] was accepted by the elocutionists, and, moreover,
became the normal Southern form.

Bronstein and Sheldon17 have shown an eighteenth-century pref-
erence for [u] in room, hoof, cooper, stood, and shook. The vowel [u]
emerged in the nineteenth century, becoming normal in stood and
shook, normal for the South in cooper, occasional in room, and frequent
in hoof.

Though our inclusion of phonetics in courses designed for the im-
provement of voice and speech marks a return to the eighteenth-
century concept of orthoepy as a part of elocution, we must not forget
that the orthoepists confused accent and quantity with syllabication
and vowel quality, and thought that the placement of an accent mark
was sometimes enough to reveal the pronunciation. Sheridan, for in-
stance, placed an accent mark over the consonant at the end of a syl-
lable containing a short vowel, but over the vowel when that was long.
He did not, however, follow his system consistently, and later writers
abandoned it. Sheridan's rules for accenting polysyllables are excellent,
comparable to those of Ellis.18 He also anticipated modern concepts
of variation of vowel quality under reduced stress; unlike Walker, he
cannot be held responsible for the unrealistic rule that unstressed
vowels are never obscured or elided. But even Walker recognized three
degrees of force: unaccented on particles, accented on significant
words, emphatic with inflection on important words.

In looking back to the eighteenth century we must remember the
orthographic handicap under which it labored. If the dictionary entries
could be reproduced in phonetic respelling, without the misleading

332 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

notion of the "power of the letters/' we should get a more definite idea
of the pronunciation of that day. Grandgent, as a phonetician, has
been better able than most to interpret the diacritics and to draw
heavily on the orthoepists for the backgrounds of New England speech.
Similarly, if we could translate eighteenth-century terminology into
present-day phonetic equivalents, we would probably discover efforts
to solve the same problems that challenge us today. Surely these
orthoepists were phoneticians before their time,

The next period, from about 1840 to I860, was marked by a phonetic
or phonotypic revolution, short lived, but amazingly successful. There
were better tools to work with, better symbols and systems, and phone-
ticians like A. J. Ellis. Another factor was organization. The eighteenth
century had been largely unorganized. Except for a few scattered
groups and the help of their publishers, the orthoepists worked as indi-
vidual writers, teachers, or advocates on their own. In the mid-nine-
teenth century, however, appeared the first phonetic societies with
their own journals.19 From this time on the movements have had organi-
zations and opportunities for publication in phonetic type.

The term revolution is no exaggeration, though the watchword of
the movement itself was reform. Excitement was in the air. Many of
the leaders were visionary in other fields. Isaac Pitman was a Sweden-
borgian, vegetarian, dudodecimalist. Others professed phrenology, paci-
fism, and communism of the Brook Farm variety. Ellis abjured these
irrelevant enthusiasms, but at that stage of his phonetic career he also
was revolutionary. Orthography was branded heterography. Hardly a
diacritic remained. The cleavage was complete.

It began when Pitman and Ellis got together, at first by phonographic
correspondence, and decided to develop shorthand into phonetic type.
Pitman's Journal became Phonetic in 1848 and so remained, except for
a short lapse, throughout the century. Both Pitman and Ellis devised
other systems, but their joint effort of 1846-1847 was endorsed by the
British Phonetic Society and became the basis for the "American
alphabet."

In 1851 Benn Pitman, one of Isaac's several indefatigable reformist
brothers, settled in Cincinnati with the Longley brothers, another
family of phonetic enthusiasts. The American Phonetic Dictionary of
the English Language, the first of its kind, was published in Cincinnati.
With an introduction by Ellis, it was larger than Jones or Kenyon-Knott,
and the vocabulary, except for the first entry, was all in phonetic type.
This and similar books were used in the schools of Greater Boston.

PHONETICS AND PRONUNCIATION

333

EongWwels.

written

g'L
$ f

cl &

printed

C e
E e

sounded as

ee in

ea ,

mrtfa.
ale

a
a

., air

jt O/

(Z a

a c

e .

8e
Oo
(Dfl)

Short Vowels.

Ii
Ee
Aa
da
Oo
Uu
Uu

Diphfhor

erer

TfTT

/sic

ow .

Coalescents.
Yy y .
"Ww w .
Aspirate.

Any

Explodents.

printed
PP

Bb
Tt
Dd

sounded as
? in xq/?e

fa/e
faafe

As X

ff "

ontinuants.
Ff
W
Rt
3d
Ss
Z z

33
Liquids.

Nasal liquids.

Mm
Nn
TJIJ

loc^:

sa/e
sa^e

buzz

wioa

fall
fo/

see/w

FIG. 8. "The American Phonetic Alphabet." From The American Phonetic Dictionary
of the English Language (Cincinnati, 1855), opp. p. 1.

334 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

The output of journals was amazing. The British Phonetic Journal
lasted longest, and was supplemented for a time by smaller periodicals.
The Anglo-Sacsun [sic], founded in Boston in 1847, and The Phonetic
Propagandist, published in New York from 1850 to 1852, favored Pit-
man against Ellis when there was a difference. Cincinnati periodicals,
which formed a regular series from The Phonetic Magazine of 1848 to
The American Phonetic Journal of 1855-1858, supported Ellis.

Ellis's textbooks, Alphabet of Nature (1845) and Essentials of Pho-
netics (1848), stamped the young man as a phonetic genius who kept
abreast of all the philological discoveries from Rask and Grimm to
Willis and Wheatstone. With minor changes in terminology they could
be used as textbooks today. Through these and later publications Ellis
exerted great influence on Henry Sweet and thus on the International
Phonetic Association. Hans Raudnitzky in Die Bell-Sweetsche Schule
accords as much space to Ellis as to the men mentioned in the title.
Among Americans interested in Ellis were J. C. Zachos and Richard A.
Soule.20

Standing somewhat apart in phonetic history was Alexander Melville
Bell's Visible Speech, projected in 1864, and supported by the British
Phonetic Society, of which Bell was a member. His American following,
both before and after he crossed the Atlantic, was not limited to
teachers of the deaf nor to experimentalists. Rahe 21 found that Purdue
in 1889 and the University of Indiana in 1890 taught Bell's system.
Bell's system was essentially analphabetic; but most of the phoneticians
retained Sweet's 22 romic (Latin) symbols and Bell's vowels as high,
mid, low, and so forth.

The reformers published school books, probably in greater supply
than demand, though Lamport cites books by Elias Longley 23 of
Cincinnati, Andrew Comstock, and Edwin Leigh, which were pre-
sumably used. Comstock paid his respects to the Pitman-Ellis alphabet
by producing an American version. This colorful Philadelphia elocu-
tionist published such pioneer works as his Phonology of 1846 and his
Phonetic Magazine, which ran from 1846 to 1848. The latter, though it
had precursors,24 was probably the first American journal to bear the
phonetic title. Comstock was also probably the first American or Eng-
lish elocutionist to invent a phonetic alphabet. He followed Rush in his
analysis, and his symbols were international, a daring venture for that
time.

Edwin Leigh, one of the Boston phonotypic reformers, published a
Pronouncing Orthography in 1864, and had a signal success, especially
in St. Louis. He also edited McGuffey and Watson25 in the new type
and made a favorable impression on the French phonetician Paul
Passy.26 In one sense Leigh compromised with the past by indicating

PHONETICS AND PRONUNCIATION 335

the sounds while preserving the orthography. In another sense he
looked forward to the next period, which compromised on spelling
while pursuing phonetic scholarship.

Much of the propaganda of the phonotypic period applies ambigu-
ously to both phonography and phonetics. James Stone o£ Boston and
Benn Pitman of Cincinnati were stenographers who advocated pho-
netics. A possible illustration of their success may be found in the fact
that the Smithsonian report of 1856 named 35 colleges and schools, from
Antioch to Yale, that taught phonography.27

The phonotypic movement gave the English-speaking world its first
phonetic dictionaries, textbooks, readers, and journals, all explicitly so
entitled. Phonetics and phonetic were slogans, applied to depots, insti-
tutions, festivals, councils, societies, soirees, even Sunday schools. Our
use of the terms today comes down to us chiefly from this movement
of a hundred years ago.

Ill

*> In 1877 the American Philological Association approved a new pho-
neBxTalphabet, at first designated by the letters APA, and at various
later times by ADS, RSA, and NEA. The alphabet achieved its greatest
popular success in 1893-1894, when Isaac Funk used it in the Standard
Dictionary. During the period from 1904 to 1911 it was endorsed by
the American Philological Association, the Modern Language Asso-
ciation, and the American Dialect Society; in 1911 it was adopted by
the National Educational Association for use in the schools. Funk and
Wagnalls used it in a Standard First Reader, This, however, was the
beginning of the end. In the same year Guy Montrose Whipple hur-
riedly published Relative Efficiency of Phonetic Alphabets, reporting
experiments that seemed to show the Webster key more effective edu-
cationally and psychologically than the NEA key; Whipple found the
Funk and Wagnalls reader "pedagogically unfit" Though he was an-
swered by Raymond Weeks, James W. Bright, and C. H. Grandgent,
in The N.E.A. Phonetic Alphabet in 1912, the outcome may be guessed
from the difficulty today of finding schoolbooks which use the NEA
system.

Roughly contemporary with the Standard Dictionary was Whitney's
Century Dictionary of 1889, which relied on diacritics, with a wealth
of historical phonetics in the etymologies. In many ways Whitney was
the father of American English phonetics. In his Oriental and Lin-
guistic Studies of 1874 he gave an early frequency count for English
sounds. He established a vowel triangle and classified the consonants
from open to close. His observations in central New England show a
mixture of eastern and western forms: he heard the New England

336 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

"short o" in coat but had no patience with the "intermediate a" in ask,

Charles H. Grandgent, who published articles and books for over
thirty years, seemed to be less aware of the east-west division in New
England and more willing to hear an actual "intermediate d\ although
he deplored its elocutionary variety. He also recognized the pure [it]
in tune as the natural Yankee pronunciation, the existence of different
vowels in hurt and hurry, and the intrusive r. An expert whose work
challenges modern phonetic analysis, albeit in non-technical terms, he
brought a humane style and mellow humor to his work. He may be
called the father of New England or Yankee phonetics.

The father of General American phonetics, on the other hand, was
Oliver Farrar Emerson, whose Ithaca Dialect appeared in 1891. The
speech of this central New York community was derived from New
England, chiefly from Connecticut, in eighteenth- and even seventeenth-
century form, and included "Western" pronunciations of such words
as ask, hot, true, and far. Thus the theory that General American
originated in older Standard English got a vigorous start. In his His-
tory of the English Language in 1905 Emerson presented a pioneer
classification of American speech as Eastern, Southern, and Western, a
classification which some present-day phoneticians still accept despite
large additions to our stock of regional phonetic data. Emerson's meth-
ods, based on sound Middle English scholarship, were rigorous; his
alphabet was essentially that of the American Philological Association.

The periodicals contained much phonetic material. The Transactions
of the American Philological Association had such writers as S. S.
Haldeman and George Hempl. The Publications of the Modern Lan-
guage Association had A. M. Bell, Sylvester Primer, E. S. Sheldon, and
others, and a phonetics section from 1887 to 1900. The Spelling Reform
Association, which preferred amended to phonotypic spelling, pub-
lished Spelling from 1887-1894 and issued various Bulletins.

The American Dialect Society 2S began publishing Dialect Notes in
1889; the present Publication of the American Dialect Society is a
continuation of the same official organ. Emerson's Ithaca Dialect was
first published in Dialect Notes; other early contributors were E. H.
Babbitt on New York City, B. S. Monroe on upstate New York. E. S.
Sheldon, and C. H. Grandgent. Somewhat later came W. A. Read on
Southern, J. S. Kenyon on the Western Reserve, and Miles Hanley.
Other American and German journals 29 were hospitable to phonetic
articles.

The APA-NEA alphabet was a transition between the earlier phono-
typy and the later phonetic approach of the International Phonetic
Association. The symbols, which were intentionally national, survived
long after the foundation of the IPA in 1889. George Philip Krapp's

PHONETICS AND PRONUNCIATION 337

Modern English (1909) and Godfrey Dewe/s Relative Frequency of
English Speech Sounds (1923, 2nd ed. 1950) are authoritative twen-
tieth-century works using nineteenth-century syrnbolization. Yet the
philological interest underlying the movement laid the foundation for
present-day American phonetics and the study of American regional
speech.

The influence of the International Phonetic Association on American
phonetics and pronunciation has been delayed. Only in the past two or
three decades has it reached those Americans who did not aspire to
speak with a British accent. Le Maitre Phonetique, the official organ,
is not widely circulated in this country. The letters IPA, which may
mean either the Association or the Alphabet, are known chiefly in the
latter sense; and the alphabet itself has been much modified for the
recording of American speech. Yet both the early and later phases of
the Association are important for Americans.

In 1886 Paul Passy, usually considered the authentic founder of the
IP A, began publishing Dhi Fonetic Titcer30 in a Pitman alphabet. In
1889 the IPA was formed, with new symbols based chiefly on Sweet's
Broad Romic, which in turn drew heavily on Alexander Melville Bell,
then a resident of Washington, D. C. Other pioneer members were
philologists like Grandgent. Among American speech teachers, Hen-
rietta Prentiss was a member by 1895, and Sarah T. Barrows by 1911.

Another American member was Robert Morris Pierce, who had joined
the IPA by 1895. This independent scholar, spelling reformer, and
language publisher, who advertised his "Alphagam" in the Quarterly
Journal of Speech as late as 1927, should probably be credited with the
first IPA dictionaries in English: the International of 1904, usually
associated with Passy as French editor and George Hempl as American
editor; the Dictionary of Hard Words of 1910; and the Dictionary of
Aviation of 1911.

Some later dictionaries using IPA symbols are Michaelis-Jones ( 1913,
British), Daniel Jones (1917 and many later editions, British), Palmer-
Martin-BIandford (1926, British with American "variants"), James F.
Bender (1943, NBC radio), Harold Wentworth (1944, American dia-
lects), Kenyon-Knott (1944, American regional standards), Morris
Needleman (1949, respellings, diacritics, and phonetics). These all use
some form of IPA symbols, though the American works used extra
symbols which the IPA did not declare official until after a good deal
of prodding by Kenyon, W. C. Greet, and others. Most speech teachers
prefer the system of syrnbolization used in Kenyon-Knott; the book,
moreover, is the first dictionary to show, clearly and unmistakably, the

338 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

pronunciation of the majority of Americans, call it General or, as the
authors suggest, Northern.

Works other than dictionaries fall into three main groups. Those
which use the form of the alphabet developed by Kenyon generally
stress the General, Northern, or Central Western type of American
Speech. Those which use the complex alphabet developed by William
Tilly (of whom more later) generally stress Eastern New England or
Southern British, and often try to fit the speech of New York City
into one of these patterns. The third group varies,

In 1924 Kenyon published American Pronunciation; the tenth edition
came out in 1950. After many years of memorializing the IPA to recog-
nize the American r-colored vowels in further, Kenyon finally suc-
ceeded. In the meantime many Americans had adopted his special
symbols for the obvious need they filled.31 Some of the publications
which closely follow the Kenyon alphabet are listed below under their
short titles:

Sarah T. Barrows, Introduction., 1928, elementary

Samuel Moore, Phonology, 1929, historical

Gray-Wise, Eases, 1934 special attention to Southern

Hedde-Brigance, Speech, 1935, high school text

Oma Stanley, East Texas, 1937, regional study

Bender-Fields, Transcriptions, 1939, voice and diction

Jane D. Zimmerman, Transcriptions -from American Speech, 1939,

radio

Virgil Anderson, Speaking Voice, 1942, voice and diction
Albert H. Marckwardt, English Language, 1942, historical
Joseph S. Hall, Great Smoky? 1942, regional study
Charles K. Thomas, Introduction, 1947, new regional divisions
Allan F. Hubbell, New York City, 1949, regional, phonemic.

William Tilly was born in Australia, taught in Germany, had influ-
ence on Daniel Jones32 in London, and began teaching at Columbia
University in 1918. Ironically, he found Jones's symbols too broad, and
added cumbrous diacritics which, in the hands of some of his students
became symbols of orthodoxy rather than tools of fine distinction. He
himself wrote little, but stimulated his students to publish. Among
many such, the following may be noted: DeWitt 1924, Daggett 1928,
McLean 1928, Davis 1933, Pray 1934, Daniels 1935, Raubicheck 1935,
Mulgrave 1936, Darrow 1937, Lamers-Smith 1937, Barber 1939, Craw-
ford 1941, Manser 1941.33

For a time the Tilly influence spread across America; today it is
largely confined to the New York City school system. Critics have
generally found the alphabet ill-favored and the regional attitude

PHONETICS AND PRONUNCIATION 339

biased. While admitting the conscientious zeal of the Tilly followers,
and the severity of the foreign-language problem in the New York City
schools, critics outside the group have generally not been able to
approve either methods or results.

Some other American and British writers have used the IP A symbols,
or symbols of their own, without committing themselves specifically to
either the Kenyon or Tilly symbols. Daniel Jones 34 began in 1909 on
intonation curves and elementary phonetics, but his many later books
are better known. The Klinghardt dot system 35 for recording intona-
tion found favor with the Tilly group. Palmer-Blandford and Arm-
strong-Ward 3G have also written on intonation, with accompanying
recordings. Special attention should be called to the use of intonation
markings in C. C. Fries's An Intensive Course in English for Latin-
American Students, 1943-1944, and to Kenneth L. Pike's The Intona-
tion of American English, 1945.

Among American phoneticians, George Philip Krapp deserves special
notice. His Pronunciation of 1919 and his English Language in America
of 1925 were the first of their kind. Like Kenyon, he had a special
symbol for the r-colored vowels, and was probably the first to use the
term "General American." 37 As a professor at Columbia he had a
notable influence. Some others not specially influenced by either Tilly
or Kenyon are listed below:

Sarah T. Barrows, English Sounds for Foreign Tongues, 1918
Anders Orbeck, New England, 1927, interpretation of written

records

Edwin F. Shewmake, Virginia, 1927, regional study
Avery-Dorsey-Sickles, Speech Training, fundamentals
Leonard Bloomfield, Language, 1933, linguistic principles, special

symbols

Kantner-West, Phonetics, 1933, 1941, kinesiological approach, spe-
cial symbols

Snyder-Wflke, Effective Speech, 1938, transcriptions, recordings
Hans Kurath, Linguistic Atlas of "New England, dialect maps
Harold Whitehall, Middle English u, historical development
R. H. Stetson, Motor Phonetics, 1945, syllables
R.-M. S. Heffner, General Phonetics, 1949, comparative
L. D. Turner, Gullah, 1949, African sounds in Negro speech.

The periodicals have multiplied. Le Maitre Phonetique, as already
reported, began in 1889; the Quarterly Journal of Speech, in 1915;
American Speech, 1925; Language, 1925; Journal of Expression, 1928;
Speech Monographs, 1934; Speech, 1935; Journal of Speech and Hear-
ing Disorders, 1936; Studies in Linguistics, 1942; Word, 1945.

340 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION., AND SPEECH

For some time Dialect Notes kept the old NEA alphabet, as shown
by Kenyon's article on the Western Reserve in 1917 and official nota-
tion in 1918. By 1937 Simpson's study of Rhode Island used IPA sym-
bols, and in 1944, when the Publication of the American Dialect Society
replaced the older journal, the IPA-Kenyon system became official.

These periodicals review the progress of the Linguistic Atlas in de-
tail from 1930 to 1939; thereafter the unpublished atlas material from
outside New England has been reported on in occasional articles. The
American Dialect Society plans a dictionary to supplement the special
reports already issued in its publications, but no date has been set for
the venture.

The IPA journal, Le Maitre Phonetique, contains short articles, offi-
cial business, and transcriptions, all in phonetic type. Essays on pho-
nemics and the r-colored vowels helped to pave the way for American
phonemics and for the official acceptance of Kenyon's symbols for the
r-colored vowels. Regular American contributors have been Bloch,
Bloomfield, deCamp, Joos, Kenyon, Trager, Voelker, and Wise, repre-
senting several schools of thought; the Tilly school, despite its devotion
to the magazine, has contributed little.

The Proceedings of the International Congresses of Phonetic Sciences
held in 1933, 1935, and 1938 contain materials on American speech
teaching. The London congress of 1935 included contributions by the
Americans Hanley, Kenyon, Kurath, Lowman, Russell, Wise, and Zim-
merman.38 The contents of these volumes include papers on phonemics,
experimental phonetics, phonograph recording, and so forth.

The Quarterly Journal of the Speech Association of America (titles of
both Journal and Association have been subject to change ) began its
phonetic career in 1921 with a resounding defense of British pronuncia-
tion by Windsor P. Daggett. In 1927 C. K. Thomas pointed out the limi-
tations of this point of view and urged the collection of more factual
material about American speech. A wide variety of related topics also
appeared in the Journal: elementary speech, discussed by Poole and
others; kinesiological phonetics by Kantner and West; objective testing
by Jean B. Jones; affective phonetics, by Jon Eisenson and others; un-
stressed syllables by L. S. Hultzen, euphony by E. L. Thorndike, to
give a general sampling. The Journal tried phonetic transcriptions in
1948-1949, shortly after American Speech had abandoned this activity.
The major journal of the Speech profession has done well by phonetics,
as the Knower index will show.

American Speech, however, has been the leading American phonetic
periodical of the past quarter century. From 1933 to 1945 Jane D.
Zimmerman edited a transcription section, mainly in Kenyon-IPA sym-
bols, which are still printed on the inside back cover. Edited at first by

PHONETICS AND PRONUNCIATION

341

Louise Pound and Kemp Malone, the magazine acquired W. C. Greet
as editor in 1933; Greet threw his influence behind Kenyon in the
latter's efforts to get the IPA to recognize symbols for the r-colored
vowels.

From the first the magazine attracted phonetic contributors. Mar-
guerite DeWitt, the only Tilly follower, was promptly answered by
Kenyon. Vance Randolph reported on Ozark pronunciation, Ayres and
Greet on the Columbia University recordings, Allen Walker Read on
local usage as the standard for place names. Claude M. Wise gave the
first complete phonetic account of the Southern drawl. In 1934 S. N.
Trevino began a phonetics bibliography.

Later came articles by Dobbie, Bloch, Heffner, Steadman, Shewmake,
Wilson, Zipf, McDavid, Bronstein, and Sheldon, and others on matters
geographical, articulatory, lexicographical. Steadman published a use-
ful list of Tongue Twisters,39 words that are really hard to say, without

FIG. 9. American Pronunciation. The pronunciation [A] predominates east and

south of the broken line; [3], north and west. Reprinted by permission from C. K.

Thomas, American Speech (April, 1946), p. 114.

any Peter Piper context. Thomas traced tentative cross-country iso-
glosses for hurry and on.40 McDavid reported on the South Carolina
Piedmont and the discovery that some Southerners, both lowland and
highland, but not both low class and high class, reported the use of a
Pennsylvania-background r. A new classification of regions, or at least
a new need, began to appear.

342 BHETOKIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

In Language, organ of the Linguistic Society, articles on phonemics
appeared from the start, with Sapir and Bloomfield breaking the
ground. A modified IPA alphabet was adopted in 1927, but variations
on it have always been freely used. Accounts of specific languages have
been frequent in the magazine. Of special interest to speech teachers
are such articles as those of Zipf on dynamic philology, Rositzke and
Heffner on vowel length, Whitehall on Modern English [i], Velter on
Infant Language, Sheldon on dictionaries, and Hockett on linguistic
continuity. Hockett, for example, argues that children associating with
playmates away from conservative family influence, may be carriers of
phonetic change. Here, as elsewhere, in a magazine to which speech
teachers have contributed little, is rigorous and original thinking.

The Journal of Expression,^ organ of the Curry School, has carried
articles by Barrows, DeWitt, Prentiss, and other speech teachers. Ex-
cept for Barrows, the point of view is mainly pro-British. The magazine
used both IPA symbols and Webster diacritics.

Speech Monographs, the research journal of the Speech Association
of America, has reported experimental phonetics freely, and linguistic
phonetics occasionally. In 1942 Wilke and Snyder reported on speech
preferences: the country as a whole favored types of speech which did
not suggest the South, the East, or New York City too strongly. In
1948 Wise pointed out that Benjamin Franklin was a genuine phone-
tician rather than a random spelling reformer. In the same year Helene
Blattner describes a pronunciation test with a list of a hundred words.
In 1949 Arthur Bronstein described American nineteenth-century vow-
els and the emergence of [a] in the early years of the century.

In Speech, an unofficial organ of elementary teachers, there is real-
istic consideration of classroom problems, and a balance between pro-
British and pro-American views, Vida R. Sutton and the editor, Ellen
Henderson, are the most frequent contributors.

The Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders is the official organ of
the American Speech and Hearing Association, a specialized offshoot
of the Speech Association of America. Devoted more to speech science
than to linguistic phonetics, it has nevertheless published such articles
as G. Oscar Russell's plea for modified IPA symbols for scientific accu-
racy, Barker's articles on dynamic phonetics, Platt on Bell's Visible
Speech, and Irwin and Chen on child speech.

Studies in Linguistics, an unofficial supplement to Language, fea-
tures phonemics, linguistic geography, and bibliography. Writers and
points of view resemble those of Language, but Speech has been rep-
resented by C. M. Wise. In June, 1945, Wise published a tentative
report outlining graduate-student projects, plus an emerging pattern of
such sounds as [si] in burn and [o] in yard in the Gulf coastal area.

PHONETICS AND PRONUNCIATION 343

Word is the organ of the Linguistic Circle of New York. Margaret
Schlauch's 1946 article frees phonernics from behavioristic restrictions.
Leopold writes on infant speech, especially bilingual. Bolinger's article
on the phonestheme includes informal experimentation on affective and
connotative aspects of sound groups. A rigorous statistical approach
characterizes Reed and Hayden; the latter carries the analysis of
relative frequency of English phonemes farther than Whitney, Dewey,
or Voelker.

Phonetic printing remains a problem. The wide range of phonetic
types offered by the Mergenthaler Linotype Company makes printing
possible, but expensive. Dent and Dutton have served Jones and the
Tilly group. Heffer in England, Pitman in New York, the Expression
Company in the Boston Area, and Wahr in Ann Arbor have all taken
risks in this hardy venture. The Varityper,42 a development of the old
Hammond typewriter, has inherited the Hammond phonetic font,
which needs bringing up to date.

Within the past generation many recordings have been made, with a
considerable range in acoustic and scholarly fidelity. Ayres and Greet,
Armstrong and Ward, Barrows and Kraft, Daggett, Gardner and
Skinner, Lloyd James, Daniel Jones, Kenyon, Raubi check and Seals
have all ventured into the field. Daggett is valuable historically, Bar-
rows and Kraft for elementary instruction, Jones for the Cardinal
Vowels. The Ayres-Greet series have made the shirker, Grip the Rat,
famous for his aunt, barn, loft, mind, and grass.

The Linguistic Atlas of the United States and Canada began field
work under Hans Kurath's direction in 1931. Six volumes of maps and
a Handbook4* for New England have been available since 1939. Most
of the field work for the Middle and South Atlantic states has been
completed, a considerable amount of field work has been done in the
upper Midwest, and scattered work has been started as far west as the
Rockies. Publication of the material from outside of New England has
been delayed except for Kurath's Word Geography of the Eastern
United States of 1949. Atlas studies show that New England divides
into Eastern and Western areas. Kurath's Word Geography outlines
Northern, Midland, and Southern main divisions, with numerous sub-
regions. Whether these divisions apply to pronunciation as well as
word usage is a question that must wait for the publication of addi-
tional Atlas material or material from other sources. Special studies of
Atlas materials by Penzl for New England, McDavid for South Caro-
lina, and Marckwardt for the Great Lakes area suggest an emerging

344 KHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

pattern. The debt of the Atlas to the great European linguistic atlases
is of course obvious and acknowledged.14

American phonemics is so new that it is difficult to evaluate. Termi-
nology and symbolization are still in flux. The use of slanting lines for
phonemes, and the restriction of square brackets to allophones is un-
doubtedly a useful distinction. But the practice of some phonemicists
of using [y] for English [j] can lead only to ambiguity when it becomes
necessary to refer to languages which have [y] vowels. Similarly, the
use of [h] as a mark of vowel length leads to ambiguity in languages
which have postvocalic [h]. Despite these vagaries, which are prob-
ably unavoidable in the establishment of a central tradition, the pho-
nemicists should serve as a stimulus to the phoneticians, who often
give too much preference to elementary teachable symbols. In alliance
with the experimental phoneticians, moreover, the phonemicists are
pioneering paths in what might be called the new visible speech, in
their use of the new machines which give direct readings for sound
analysis in place of the laborious system of Fourier analysis. The bear-
ing of phonemics on phonetics is inescapable; unless we keep the dis-
tinctive sounds of any form of English in mind, we waste our time and
our understanding in symbolizing a mass of trivia, as the Tilly school
so often has done. As suggested by Hultzen,45 phoneticians need to
study and restudy the phonemic philosophy found in Bloch, Bloomfleld,
Hockett, Pike, Sapir, Trager, Twaddell, and the rest of the American
structural linguists.46

Though the role of the speech teacher in phonetics and pronunci-
ation has been largely assimilative, there have nevertheless been orig-
inal contributions. Barrows and Kraft have excelled in practical re-
cording, Hultzen in symbol analysis, Snyder and Wilke in speech
preferences, Zimmerman in radio pronunciation. Wise and Thomas have
made extensive regional surveys, the former especially in Louisiana,
the latter especially in New York.

A constructive development is the teaching of phonetics in speech
departments. In 1927 Barrows found only a handful of such courses;
today we may estimate well over two hundred. A similar trend appears
in the textbooks of public speaking and fundamentals of speech, as
distinct from texts on voice and speech correction. The IPA alphabet
appears in Baird and Knower, Bender, Brigance and Immel, Crocker,
Eisenson, Hibbitt, McCall, Murray, Oliver and Cortright, Painter,
Thonssen and Gilkinson, Winans, Woolbert and Smith, and others. In
dramatics, Albright and Dolman have followed the trend. Gray and

PHONETICS AND PRONUNCIATION 345

Wise have assimilated phonetic material all through their Bases of
Speech.

VII

In summary, modern speech education is in debt to English eiglit-
eenth-century orthographical or diacritical phonetics; any general dic-
tionary or elementary school language text will illustrate this indebted-
ness. The orthoepists conscientiously described the pronunciation of
their time; Walker especially influenced American phonetic thinking.

Before 1850 Pitman and Ellis developed phonotypic phonetics,, with
a name that stuck. Comstock put Rush into symbols, journals appeared,
and the reform even reached a few schools. The major effect, however,
was to come later in the formation of the IP A.

In the later nineteenth century American philological phonetics be-
gan, and the ground was laid for later understanding of American
regional speech. Learned societies and the journals were matched by
the use of a phonetic alphabet in a famous dictionary. The schools
almost went phonetic.

In the twentieth century the IPA developed an indirect but powerful
influence. Many periodicals, including Speech journals, published pho-
netic materials. Rivalries developed over symbolization and, more ba-
sically, over acceptable standards of pronunciation, but seem now well
on the way toward resolution with a clearer realization of phonemic
principles and an emerging pattern of American regional speech.

In some ways, mainly in regional research, Speech has added to our
understanding of the whole field. In other ways its leaders have gath-
ered and synthesized facts and ideas from orthoepy, phonotypy, philol-
ogy, the IPA, geography, and phonemics.

Notes

1. Esther K. Sheldon, "Pronouncing Systems in 18th Century Dictionaries/'
Language, XXII (January-March, 1946), 27. See also Sheldon's "Walker's In-
fluence on the Pronunciation of English," PMLA, LXII (March, 1947), 130-146.

2. Henry B. Wheatley, "Notes on Some English Heterographers," and "Chrono-
logical Notices of the Dictionaries of the English Language," Transactions of the
Philological Society, 1865; Alexander J. Ellis, On Early English Pronunciation
(London, 1869), Pt I, Ch. II; Harold B. Lamport, A History of the Teaching of Be-
ginning Reading (Chicago, 1937); George P. Krapp, The English Language in
America (New York, 1925), II, 273-284; Goold Brown, Grammar of English
Grammars (New York, 1855), pp. xi-xx; Karl Brown and D. C. Haskell, The Short-
hand Collection in the New Jork Public Library (New York, 1935), George H.
McKnight, Modern English in the Making (New York, 1928); and Lester Thonssen,
et al., Bibliography of Speech Education ( New York, 1939 ) , Supplement ( 1950 ) .

3. American College Dictionary ( New York, 1947 ) ; The New American Web-
ster Dictionary (New York, 1951).

346 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

4. Thomas Sheridan, Lectures on Elocution ( London, 1781), The Art of Read-
ing (Dublin, 1775); John Walker, Elements of Elocution (London, 1781), Rhetori-
cal Grammar, 2d ed. (London, 1787); Robert Nares, Elements of Orthoepy (Lon-
don, 1784).

5. McKnight and Brown, op. cit.

6. James Elphinston, Propriety Ascertained in Her Picture (London, 1787).

7. Benjamin Franklin, "Scheme for a New Alphabet/' Works (Boston, 1840),
pp. 295-300. Claude M. Wise, "Benjamin Franklin as a Phonetician/* SM, XV
(1948), 99-120.

8. John B. Newman, "The Role of Joshua Steele in the Development of Speech
Education in America/* SM, XX (1953), 65-73.

9. Andrew Comstock, Phonetic Magazine (1846-1848).

10. James Rush, Philosophy of the Human Voice (Philadelphia, 1827), Lester
L. Hale, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State, 1942, Dan Scully, unpub-
lished M.A. thesis, Louisiana State, 1951.

11. Proceedings of the National Association of Elocutionists (1892-1905), of the
Speech Arts Association (1906-1916).

12. R. L. and Maria E. Edgeworth, Practical Education, 2d ed. (London, 1801 ).

13. Goold Brown, op. cit., 162.

14. John Marchant, New Complete English Dictionary (London); J. Barclay,
Complete and Universal English Dictionary (London).

15. F. Barlow, Complete English Dictionary (London).

16. Charles H. Grandgent, "Fashion and the Broad A/' "The Dog's Letter/'
"New England Pronunciation/' Old and New (Cambridge, Mass., 1920).

17. Arthur Bronstein and Esther K. Sheldon, "Derivatives of Middle English O,
. . ./' American Speech, XXVI (May, 1951), 81-89.

18. A. J. Ellis, "Accent Laws/' Phonetic Journal (Pitman's, 1848), 165-166.

19. British Phonetic Society, 1843, American Phonetic Society (Cincinnati),
1848. Elias Longley, Manual of Phonography (Cincinnati, 1853), v-vi and end.
Pitman's Journal (1842- ); Phonographic, 1842; Phonotypic, 1843-1847, 1849;
Phonetic, 1848-1849, Feb., 1850-. Cincinnati: Phonetic Magazine, 1848-1849;
Phonetic Advocate, 1848-1852; Type of the Times, interim; American Phonetic
Journal, 1855-1859.

20. J. C. Zachos, Analytic Elocution (New York, 1861), Richard Soule, Jr. and
Win. A. Wheeler, Manual of English Pronunciation (Boston, 1861); S. S. Hamill,
Science of Elocution (New York, 1879), Robert Kidd, New Elocution and Vocal
Culture (Cincinnati, 1883).

21. Herbert E. Rahe, "Speech Education in Ten Indiana Colleges," unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Wisconsin, 1939; Harry S. Houghton, Elements of Public
Speaking (Boston, 1916); Glenn N. Merry, Principles of Speech (Iowa City, 1921).

22. Henry Sweet, History of English Sounds (Oxford, 1874); Handbook of
Phonetics (Oxford, 1877).

23. Elias Longley, Furst Fonetic Redur (Boston, 1850); Andrew Comstock,
Phonetic Reader (Philadelphia, 1847).

24. Andrew Comstock, Phonology, 2d. ed. (Philadelphia, 1855), pp. 9-12. Pre-
cursors: Franklin, 1768; Thornton, 1793, Ewing, 1798; Pelham, 1808; Embree,
1813; Kneeland, 1825, and others. Journals: M. H. Barton, Something New (Bos-
ton and Harvard, 1831 ) ; Wm. Beardsley, Literary Reformer ( St. Louis, 1841 ) .

25. Leigh's McGuffeys New Eclectic Primer (Cincinnati, 1864); Leigh's Wat-
sons National School Primer (New York, 1873).

26. Paul Passy, L9 Instruction Primaire aux Etats-Unis (Paris, 1885), p. 57; Dhi
Fonetic Titcer (Paris, 1886), p. 1.

27. Townsend Sharpless and Robert Patterson, phonetic advocates, Smithsonian
Report (Washington, 1857), pp. 277-280.

28. Louise Pound, "The American Dialect Society: A Historical Sketch/* Pub-
lications American Dialect Society (April, 1952), pp. 3-28.

29. Englische Studien (1877—), Modern Language Notes (1886-), Phonetische

PHONETICS AND PRONUNCIATION 347

Studien ( 1888- ), Volta Review ( 1889—), Jour, of English and Germanic Philology
(1897-), Modern Philology (1903-), English Journal (1912- ).

30. Recently reprinted by IPA, A. C. Gimson, Sec., University College, London
W. C. 1.

31. Charles K. Thomas, "Symposium on Phonetics," QJS, XXXI (October, 1945).
For a different view see Letitia Raubicheck, "A Footnote on Phonetics," QJS9 XXXII
(February, 1946).

32. Daniel Jones, "William Tilly," Le Maitre Phonetique (October, December,
1935), p. 53.

33. M. de Witt, Euphon English; W. P. Daggett (handbook with recordings);
Margaret P. McClean, Good American Speech; Estelle Davis and E. W. Mammen,
Spoken Word; Sophie Pray et al, Graded Objectives; Fannie E. Daniels, Good
Speech Primer; Letitia Raubicheck, Teaching Speech, Dorothy I. Mulgrave, Speech
for the Classroom Teacher; Anne Darrow, Folk Speech; W. Lamers and M. E.
Smith, Making of a Speaker; Sara M. Barber, Speech Education; Margaret E. A.
Crawford, Pamways to Tone; Ruth B. Manser, Conversations in Phonetic Transcrip-
tion.

34. Daniel Jones, Phonetic Transcriptions (Oxford, 1907); Intonation Curves
(Leipzig, 1909); Pronunciation of English (London, 1909); Outline of English
Phonetics (Leipzig, 1918); The Phoneme (London, 1950).

35. H. Klinghardt, Vbungen im Englischen T onfall, 2d. ed. (Leipzig, 1927).

36. Harold E. Palmer, English Intonation (Cambridge, Eng., 1924), with F. G.
Blandford, Everyday Sentences in Spoken English (Cambridge, 1922); Lilias E.
Armstrong and Ida C. Ward, Handbook of English Intonation, 2d. ed. ( Cambridge,
1931).

37. English Language in America, I, 40; II, p. 230.

38. Miles Hanley— Linguistic Atlas recording; J. S. Kenyon— Ayres-Greet record-
ings; Hans Kurath— Linguistic Atlas; Guy Lowman-[au] in Virginia; G. Oscar
Russell— Vowel Triangle; C. M. Wise— Comparative Pronunciations; Jane D. Zim-
merman—Radio Pronunciations.

39. Amer. Sp., XI (October, 1936), 203-204; English Journal, XXV (September,
1836), 573-588.

40. Thomas-April, 1946; McDavid-October, December, 1948.

41. Journal of Expression (June, 1927-1932?).

42. Vari-Typer, Type Faces (Chicago, 1943-1946).

43. Hans Kurath, Handbook of the Linguistic Geography of New England ( New
York, 1939).

44. Sever Pop, La Dialectologie (Louvain, 1950).

45. Lee S. Hultzen, "Phonetics, Phonemics, and the Teacher of Speech," QJS
(April, 1947).

46. Bernard Bloch, "Postulates," Language, XXIV (January, 1948), 3-46;
with George L. Trager, Outline of Linguistic Analysis ( 1942 ) ; Leonard L. Bloom-
field, "Postulates," Language, II (1926), 153-164, and Language [book], (New
York, 1933); ZeUig S. Harris, Methods in Structural Linguistics (Chicago, 1951);
Charles F. Hockett, "A System of Descriptive Phonology/* Language, XVIII (Jan-
uary-March, 1942); Kenneth L. Pike, Phonemics (Ann Arbor, 1947); Edward
Sapir, Selected Writings (Berkeley, 1949), George L. Trager and Henry L. Smith,
Outline of English Structure (Norman, Oklahoma, 1951); W. F. Twaddell (Balti-
more, 1935). For others see the periodicals: American Speech, Language, Studies
in Linguistics, Word.

ID The Rise of Experimental Phonetics

JAMES F. CURTIS

The impress of science and the methodology of science on the pat-
terns of our study and thinking has been felt in nearly every academic
discipline. The importance of its influence in the study of speech, both
on what we study and how we study and think, has been widely
recognized. A recent article by Simon, for example, stresses the per-
vasive role of scientific method in the study of speech.1 Many research
studies employ experimental methods and quantitative procedures
even in the fields of artistic performance.2

In shaping this trend toward the scientific study of speech, experi-
mental phonetics has played a significant part. If we take the awarding
of the Ph.D. degree in speech as evidence of academic majority, we
see that experimental phonetics was exerting a substantial influence on
graduate study and research when speech first came of age as an aca-
demic discipline. Two of the first four dissertations accepted for Ph.D.
degrees in speech were studies in experimental phonetics.3 From this
beginning, growth has been steady, until today no national convention
program of either the Speech Association of America or the American
Speech and Hearing Association would be complete without at least
one sectional program devoted to the reporting of research in experi-
mental phonetics.

Nor has the influence of experimental phonetics been confined to the
rarified atmosphere of graduate study. The undergraduate speech cur-
riculum has also felt its force. In his 1950 analysis of the courses which
make up the undergraduate major in general speech in American col-
leges and universities, Donald E. Hargis reports that fifty-three of two
hundred institutions studied included a course in voice science as a part
of the offering for this major.4 It is almost certain that for specialized
majors in speech correction and hearing rehabilitation the statistics
would have been even more impressive. In f act? experimental phonetics
is expressly listed in the Clinical Certification Requirements of the

348

THE RISE OF EXPERIMENTAL PHONETICS 349

American Speech and Hearing Association 5 as one of the areas of study
from which the basic requirements must be met for any level or type
of clinical certification. Furthermore, data derived from laboratory
studies have application for general speech courses ( e.g. fundamentals
of speech, and voice and diction), and for the specialized courses in
speech correction and hearing rehabilitation.

This chapter will try to trace the lines of development which have
given rise to this branch of experimental science. At the outset, how-
ever, we confront the question: What is the scope of experimental
phonetics?

The field is hard to define and circumscribe. This is, in part, because
the term has had different meanings for different people, and, in part,
because many of the important contributors to the field have been, and
still are, persons who have not regarded themselves primarily as experi-
mental phoneticians. Some of the most important contributions have
come from physicists, psychologists, physiologists, and communica-
tions engineers, as well as from researchers in speech and linguistics.
We are concerned with a borderline area, one which cannot be con-
fined within the boundaries of any one of the older divisions of science.
Some persons who have applied experimental techniques to the study
of phonetics, such as Stetson in this country, have confined their inves-
tigations almost wholly to the physiological processes of speech pro-
duction. But many others have found it impossible to restrict their
interests to the physiology of speech. To them the data of speech physi-
ology take on real meaning only as they relate to the physical charac-
teristics of the sounds produced. Adequate understanding of such
acoustical phenomena, in turn, demands that they be interpreted as
language symbols which are recognized and assigned meaning by lis-
teners. The processes of perception must likewise, therefore, be viewed
as falling within the scope of experimental phonetics.

Still another difficulty in definition is that the experimenter finds it
impossible to restrict his interest to those aspects of speech signals
which are usually designated by the term phonetic. One cannot study
speech sounds, either from the standpoint of their production or their
acoustical properties, without realizing that a fundamental aspect of
many speech sounds is vocal fold vibration. Hence, the student of
experimental phonetics shortly finds himself concerned with a wide
range of problems involving the human vocal apparatus as a sound gen-
erator. He thus brings within his scope of study many phenomena such
as vocal pitch, voice quality, and so forth, which are not phonetic or

350 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

phonemic in character, at least in English, but which are nevertheless
important, both because they are significant aspects of speech behavior
and because they constitute important variations in language signals
which have meaning for listeners. In short, the experimental phone-
tician brings within his view all those phenomena that are sometimes
classified by the label, voice science.

We may indeed question whether the division between experimental
phonetics and voice science is not an altogether artificial one. For
example, the publication by Giles W. Gray and his students of studies
of the breathing process for voice production appeared under the title
Studies in Experimental Phonetics,6 although some might consider
them as studies in voice science. On the other hand, Voice Science by
Judson and Weaver 7 contains a considerable amount of material which
is strictly phonetic. Moreover, sectional programs at national conven-
tions entitled Experimental Phonetics have more often than not in-
cluded papers which were concerned with such nonphonetic vocal
phenomena as vocal pitch and intensity, vocal quality, studies of the
vibratory motion of the vocal folds, and so forth.

The principal feature which seems to distinguish experimental pho-
netics from other branches of speech study is that it is an experimental
science, and, to a large extent, a laboratory science. It is that branch of
experimental, laboratory science which concerns itself with speech
phenomena, that is to say, with speech signals, their production, and
the processes by which they are perceived and interpreted.

In tracing the history and background of experimental phonetics, we
shall first give attention to the backgrounds of acoustic phonetics and
then turn to the development of physiological phonetics and psycho-
physical phonetics. We shall not carry our account of the historical
backgrounds beyond 1930. By this date experimental phonetics may be
said to have passed its infancy and attained some status as an experi-
mental science. By this time, too, it was established within university
speech departments. Lastly, by the end of the 1920's, the principal
techniques and tools of experimental phonetics had either been well
developed, or at least foreshadowed by such events as the rapid devel-
opment of electronics during the twenties.

The first roots of experimental phonetics date back further than may
be commonly realized. They spring from the new spirit of skepticism
and inquiry of the seventeenth century. Faith and superstition were
being challenged by a growing predilection to "try it and see." Present
among the questions which piqued men's increasing scientific curiosity

. 10. Physiological Positions for the Speech Sounds According to Wilkins.

352 RHETOKIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

were those concerning the mechanisms by which human speech is pro-
duced. As early as 1668 Bishop John Wilkins, an Englishman, published
a book in which he attempted to describe and represent by anatomical
diagrams the physiological positions for the various phonemes, and in
which he presented a phonetic alphabet based on the presumed physi-
ological characteristics of the sounds.8 Figure 10 is a reproduction of
page 378 of this book, showing what Wilkins believed to be the posi-
tions of the articulatory apparatus for eight vowels and twenty-six
consonants. His phonetic symbols appear at the upper right of each
picture. The insight into the physiology of speech production shown
by these illustrations seerns amazing for so early a date.

The first work of real scientific interest for acoustic phonetics came
about a century after Wilkins' book and consisted of attempts to
build speaking machines which could be made to simulate speech. In
1769 Wolfgang Hitter von Kempelen began work on his speaking
machine, a task taking much of his time for twenty-two years and
culminating in a mechanical speaking device capable of producing
rather fair imitations, so we are told, of not only a considerable number
of vowels, but of nineteen consonant sounds, and of connected speech
combinations as long as five or six syllables. In 1791 von Kempelen
published a 456-page book describing his experiments together with
his conclusions concerning the physiology of speech production.9 Dur-
ing this period other attempts to produce speaking machines were
made, though none was on a comparable scale. The most notable was
the work of Kratzenstein, who in 1779 was awarded the annual prize of
the Imperial Academy of St. Petersburg for apparatus which would
produce five vowels, [a], [e], [i], [o], and [u]. He used five resonating
tubes or cavities whose shapes were in part a rough imitation of the
conformations of the human vocal tract for these vowels and in part,
presumably, whose shapes were a result of trial and error experi-
mentation.10

The speaking machines of von Kempelen and Kratzenstein were
similar in certain respects. Both used vibrating reeds as sound gen-
erators and both depended upon the shaping of resonating cavities for
the variations of sounds obtained. Von Kempelen's apparatus was the
more elaborate and provided means of obstructing, restricting, and
directing the air stream for consonant production. Both devices were
the result of trial and error rather than systematic experimentation and
there is little reason to believe that either of these men had any real
conception of the physical principles which governed the variation in
sound with which they experimented. Their work is nevertheless of
acoustical interest since it may be taken as the beginning of a long
series of experiments in synthesizing speech which are still being

THE RISE OF EXPERIMENTAL PHONETICS 353

carried on and which have contributed much to our knowledge of the
acoustical characteristics of speech.

It was well into the nineteenth century, nearly one hundred and
fifty years after von Kempelen and Kratzenstein, before real progress
began to be made in understanding the acoustical nature of vowel
sounds. The work of Willis (1830) is the important landmark, since he
may be said to have formulated the first scientific theory of vowel
sounds stated in terms of definite physical principles deduced from
bubstantial experimental investigation. Willis began with the work of
Kratzenstein and von Kempelen, but went on to experiment with other
forms of cavities and tubes, especially reed-organ pipes.11 His work
showed that it was not the form or shape, but rather the particular
tuning of the cavity or pipe, which determined the vowel quality per-
ceived by the ear. He concluded, therefore, that each vowel has a
characteristic fixed pitch and that it is this fixed pitch or cavity tone
which gives each vowel its peculiar sound. He found, moreover, that
the pitch of the composite tone produced by his reed-organ pipes was
determined by the vibration frequency of the reed, and since the
frequency of the reed could be varied independently without disturb-
ing the vowel quality so long as the tuning of the pipe remained the
same, he further concluded that no necessary relationship need exist
between them, i.e., the cavity tone could as easily be inharmonic as
harmonic to the frequency of the reed. By analogy Willis' theory stated
that the tone produced by the larynx of the human vocal mechanism
served the double function of determining the vocal pitch and of
exciting the cavity tone to which the supraglottal cavities of the vocal
tract were tuned. Vowel quality, however, was thought to depend only
on this cavity tone which bore no necessary harmonic relationship to
the tone from the larynx. For this reason the cavity tone theory of
Willis has come to be spoken of as the inharmonic theory of vowel
quality.

Only a few years later (1837), Wheatstone, who like Willis dupli-
cated and extended some of the experiments of Kratzenstein and von
Kempelen, published his ideas on the acoustical nature of different
vowel qualities.12 It is of interest that Wheatstone apparently saw no
fundamental disagreement between his concept and that of Willis, but
seemed to regard his theory as mainly an extension and elaboration of
the conclusions Willis had reached. Nevertheless, his statements laid
the foundation ofjhe cord-tone-resonance theory, or harmonic theory,
and the relative merit of these two theories of vowel quality became the
subject matter for a heated controversy which was to continue into the
twentieth century. Wheatstone agreed with Willis that for each vowel
there is a characteristic cavity tuning. However, he conceived of the

354 RHETOBIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

cavities as resonators which sound in response to the vibrations pro-
duced in the larynx and which sound maximally when the resonant
frequency of the cavity is harmonically related to the vibration fre-
quency produced by the larynx. It is not clear that Wheatstone con-
ceived of the cavities as amplifying selectively partials which were
already present in the vocal fold tone. He seems rather to argue that
the fundamental frequency of the vocal fold tone excites higher modes
of the cavities when the necessary harmonic relationship is present. His
theory thus laid the basis for the fixed-resonance theory which was to
be more completely and elaborately stated by Helmholtz. Moreover,
the view that the various partials of the complex vocal tone were
necessarily harmonically related provided a theoretical basis for the
application of harmonic analysis based on Fourier's Series. It was,
indeed, the question of whether or not this method is applicable to
resolving the complex vowel tone which lay at the basis of much of
the controversy over vowel theories.

Perhaps the best-known, later exponents of the inharmonic theory
of Willis are Hermann and Scripture. Hermann13 quickly saw the
possibilities of adapting the phonograph, which had been invented by
Edison in 1877, for phonetic research, and in 1889 he began the pub-
lication of his research with that instrument. He found confirmation
for the fixed pitch theory in the fact that vowel quality could be
destroyed by increasing or decreasing the speed of reproduction of his
vowel records. His study of vowel wave forms, obtained by means of
phonograph recording, led him to the conclusion that the vowel tone
was much more complex than Willis had conceived it to be, but he
followed Willis in concluding that these wave forms did not show evi-
dence of necessary harmonic relationships among the partials of the
complex tone. He therefore rejected the application of Fourier analysis
to their study. Hermann should apparently get credit for first applying
the term "formant" to the characteristic partial frequencies of vowels,
although he used it with reference to the inharmonic partials which he
conceived to be characteristic of vowel quality, whereas modern usage
of the term is more general.

E. W. Scripture also espoused the Willis-Hermann ideas and rejected
the applicability of harmonic analysis to vowel study.14 A large part of
his 1906 book was addressed to this issue and to the explanation of
procedures for "inharmonic analysis'* which he had developed.

Throughout this period the harmonic, or cord-tone-resonance, theory
of vowels also had staunch proponents. Probably the most famous of
these was Helmholtz. Just prior to Helmholtz's important work in
acoustics and audition, in fact while Helmholtz, as a young man of
twenty-two, was studying to become a surgeon, Ohm published his law

THE KISE OF EXPERIMENTAL PHONETICS 355

of tone quality, which systematized much of what was then known con-
cerning complex tones.15 Helrnholtz devoted much of his work on
acoustics to extending and elaborating this law. He developed the the-
ory of summation and difference tones as well as the theory of the spher-
ical resonators which have since been known as Helrnholtz resonators.
He did extensive work on both the analysis and synthesis of complex
tones, including vowels.16 His technique of analysis made use of tuned
resonators as an aid to the ear in perceptually analyzing which frequen-
cies in a complex tone produced the loudest sensation. In synthesizing
tones, he employed series of eight or more harmonically related tuning
forks and also tunable organ pipes, According to independent ob-
servers these latter experiments seem to have been only partially suc-
cessful.17 As previously indicated, his vowel theory followed closely
the thinking of Wheatstone, but his fixed resonance theory was much
more completely developed than Wheatstone's. Helrnholtz held that
vowels are characterized, not by single fixed pitches, but by fixed
regions of resonance, determined by the vocal cavities, and that those
harmonic partials of the laryngeal tone which lie within the region or
regions of resonance for a particular vowel are selectively amplified
by virtue of their favorable frequency location. Helrnholtz also de-
termined that the mouth cavity could act as a double resonator, i.e.,
could be simultaneously tuned to two resonant frequencies, and he
believed that certain vowels were characterized by such double res-
onance, whereas others required only a single region of resonance.

Perhaps the most prominent name among twentieth-century pro-
ponents of the harmonic theory of vowels is that of D. C. Miller. His
book, The Science of Musical Sounds (1916) is a classic, and his pio-
neering work in the application of harmonic analysis to vowels, as
reported in this work, became the point of departure for much of the
later work on vowel analysis. As verification of his vowel analyses,
Miller also attempted the synthesis of vowel sounds. In these experi-
ments he made use of organ pipes which were carefully tuned to repro-
duce the exact combinations of partials which he had found from his
vowel analyses. Miller's interpretations of his results support the fixed-
resonance, harmonic, theory of Helrnholtz and he argued vigorously
for the validity of this theory as opposed to the inharmonic, cavity
tone, theory. Yet he apparently recognized that the matter was not
completely settled. On page 215 of the 1922 edition of The Science of
Musical Sounds, he wrote: 'The tone quality of vowels has been more
closely studied than that of all other sounds combined, and yet no
single opinion of the cause of vowel quality has prevailed/'

In recent years the controversy over vowel theories has apparently
faded, or at least become less heated, although Scripture continued to

356 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

argue vehemently against the validity of harmonic analysis well into
the thirties. 1S Beginning with the work of Crandall most researchers
seem to have adopted a more moderate point of view.19 While recog-
nizing that spoken vowels are only quasi-periodic and therefore that
the existence of transient and inharmonic partials must be admitted,
they have nevertheless considered the resonant character of these
sounds to be well established, following the reasoning of Helmholtz and
Miller. They have, therefore, generally believed that important data on
the nature of vowel quality can be deduced from the results of Fourier
Analysis and this method has been more widely applied than any other
in vowel studies. CrandalFs very important study of spoken vowels and
consonants is a good illustration of this more eclectic position. He
employed harmonic analysis to investigate the important regions of
resonance, but he also studied the oscillographic records of wave forms,
after the manner of Hermann, in an attempt to detect and measure any
transient components which might be present with significant ampli-
tude. Recently developed electrical analyzers, such as the sound spec-
trograph,20 avoid the methodological aspects of the controversy over
vowel theories quite successfully, since they resolve whatever energy
is present in the complex acoustical wave, without regard to whether
it is harmonic or inharmonic, transient or steady-state.

The story of vowel research and work on synthetic speech down to
1930 would hardly be complete without mention of the work of Paget
in England.21 Paget in many respects seems to hark back to von
Kempelen and Kratzenstein for he, too, employed models consist-
ing primarily of reed vibrators and cavities which were shaped in
imitation of the vocal tract conformations. Unlike his predecessors of
the eighteenth century, however, Paget employed his models, with
cavities made from plastiscene and rubber, to deduce general acoustical
principles concerning speech production. Pagefs work on the reso-
nances of vowels led to collaboration with W. K Benton on the attempt
at mathematical analysis of the vocal resonance system.22 Although this
attempt was only partially successful, it was a step along a road which
has more recently been followed with greater success.23

Most of the recent work on synthesizing speech has made use of
electrical analogues of the human speech apparatus consisting of elec-
trical resonant circuits and electrical or electronic sound generators.24
This work was foreshadowed during the period we are considering by
the electrical analogue devised by J. Q. Stewart,25 Stewart made use
of the data on vowel resonances which had been obtained by D. C.
Miller, whose research we have previously noted. With his apparatus
he was apparently able to imitate not only normally voiced vowels and
a number of semivowels, but whispered vowels as well.

THE RISE OF EXPERIMENTAL PHONETICS 357

From the standpoint of acoustical research on speech, perhaps the
most significant development of the first three decades of our century
was the embarkation on a long-range program of research in speech
and hearing by the Bell Telephone Laboratories. Beginning midway in
the second decade, it was inevitable that this program, supported by a
large industrial laboratory which could maintain a team of highly
trained specialists, would have an impact beyond that which could be
achieved by individuals working alone in scattered university labora-
tories. Harvey Fletcher's Speech and H earing,2 B which has become a
classic in both acoustic phonetics and audition, summarizes the results
of this program of research during the period here considered. We can
hardly pass on, however, without at least highlighting the significant
trends in research which were begun during this time. Crandalfs
analyses of the sounds of speech and Stewart's work on an electrical
analogue of the vocal tract have already been mentioned. In 1922
Crandall and MacKenzie published data on the long-time, frequency-
energy distribution for speech.27 In 1925 and 1926, articles by Sacia28
and by Sacia and Beck 20 reported measurements on the powers of the
various speech sounds, consonants as well as vowels. Research on
speech perception, which was proceeding simultaneously, will be men-
tioned later.

Thus far the discussion has dealt mainly with acoustical theories of
speech and with research in the analysis and synthesis of speech. Going
back to the middle of the nineteenth century, this paper will trace some
of the equally important developments in apparatus and technique
which have made such analytical studies possible.

Among the most important tools of acoustic phonetics have been
devices for obtaining graphical records of sound waves. One of the
earliest such devices was the phonautograph invented by Leon Scott.30
This instrument consisted of a horn terminated by a diaphragm with a
stylus which recorded the vibratory movement of the diaphragm on
smoked paper carried by a revolving drum. Rudolph Koenig, one of
the great names in acoustics during the nineteenth century, apparently
made extensive use of Scott's invention. In 1862 Koenig invented the
manometric capsule, a device in which the flame of a gas jet is made
to vibrate in response to the pressure variations of a sound wave.31
Although Koenig did not devise methods of securing permanent rec-
ords with the manometric capsule, later investigators made improve-
ments on it which permitted photographing the manometric flame
records of vowels and spoken words.32

The invention of the phonograph by Edison in 1877 opened up new
possibilities. In 1890 Hermann succeeded in making photographic en-
largements of the groove modulation of a phonograph recording by

358 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

reflecting a beam of light onto film from a mirror carried on the repro-
ducing stylus.33 Scripture's device for producing kymographic tracings
of phonograph groove modulations is completely described in his 1906
book.34 These two devices may be considered the forerunners of later
equipment, e.g., the phonellegraph developed by Metfessel.35 Probably
the most precise means of graphical recording of speech vibrations,
prior to the refinement of electrical oscillographic methods, was pro-
vided by the phonodeik of D. C. Miller.36 This instrument consisted of
a horn and diaphragm of very thin glass which was connected to a tiny
mirror in such a manner that the mirror would oscillate in response to
vibrations of the diaphragm. The reflection of a fine beam of light from
this mirror to a photographic film produced an enlarged record of the
vibratory movements. This apparatus was constructed with exquisite
precision and was capable of recording frequencies above 12,000 cps.
During the 1890*s an important development was the invention of the
string galvanometer by Duddell 37 and Blondel 3S which made possible
photographic recording of small electrical oscillations. However, the
application of this device to graphical recording of sound vibrations
had to await later refinements and the development of calibrated micro-
phones and electronic amplifiers.

Among the other important developments which took place during
the late nineteenth century, Henricf s harmonic analyzer should be
noted.39 This mechanical device for obtaining the coefficients of the
Fourier Series made harmonic analysis a more rapid and practical
technique for resolving the energy distribution of vowels, and thus
paved the way for the extensive vowel research of Miller as well as a
considerable number of later investigators.

Twentieth-century developments, besides those already noted, in-
clude the invention of the high fidelity calibrated microphones with
which the name of Wente 40 is closely associated, the refinement of the
string galvanometer oscillograph, for which Fletcher gives primary
credit to L B. Crandall and C. F. Sacia,41 and the many refinements of
audio frequency recording and measuring equipment which have come
with the development of electronic technology. Indeed, the character
of modern research tools in experimental phonetics, as in many other
branches of laboratory science, has been so changed by the rapid
developments in electronics of the last three decades that we may
appropriately speak of the "Electronic Revolution." Without the
vacuum-tube amplifier, the calibrated microphone and the string
galvanometer oscillograph would have been useless as tools of acoustical
research and there would be today no modern disc or magnetic tape
recording. Without the vacuum tube, there would be no oscillators, no
high-speed graphical level recorders, no cathode ray oscillographs.

THE RISE OF EXPERIMENTAL PHONETICS 359

III

The experimental method in physiological phonetics begins even
earlier than in acoustic phonetics. The work of Kempelen and Kratzen-
stein, previously described, had at least as much physiological as acous-
tical interest and motivation. Indeed, Kratzenstein was a professor of
physiology, first at Halle and later at Copenhagen. But physiological
experimentation on the voice had started well before the career of
either man. According to Metzger,42 Anton Ferrein, who published his
results in 1741, was the first to approach the physiology of speech
experimentally. He experimented on the larynxes of cadavers as well
as on the excised larynxes of dogs, pigs, and cows. Moreover, his at-
tempts to simulate the larynx with elastic membranes may be con-
sidered the first experiments with laryngeal models.

Johannes Miiller, however, in the fourth decade of the nineteenth
century, was the first to experiment extensively and systematically with
artificial models of the larynx.43 His work was not limited to models,
for he also made extensive observations on cadavers. He concluded that
the vocal folds are essentially analogous to a pair of flat membranes
and, further, that the supraglottal air is set in motion as a result of
direct transmission of the up and down vibratory motion of these mem-
branes, rather than as a result of modulation of the air stream into
pulses by an opening and closing movement. These conclusions of
Midler were rather widely accepted until late in the nineteenth cen-
tury. In fact, a similar view, at least with respect to the flat membrane
analogy, was held as late as the 1930's.44

Mxiller's views were unchallenged until the publication in 1855 of
Garcia's theory of phonation.45 Garcia is probably best known because
in 1841 he became the first person to successfully observe the action
of the living vocal cords by means of a mirror inserted into the oral
pharynx,46 although Moore mentions a number of previous unsuccess-
ful, or only partially successful, attempts.47 Garcia's theory of vocal
cord action, based on his observations, is also important, for it is in the
main very close to the view most prevalent today. Garcia apparently
did not accept the flat membrane analogy, for he consistently uses the
term folds and lips to refer to the vocal folds. Moreover, in opposition
to Muller's views, Garcia believed that voice results from a series of
explosive pulses which arise from the opening and closing movements
of the folds. The following is taken from Metzger's quotation of Gar-
cia's 1855 article in the Philosophical Magazine:

The ligaments of the glottis . . . close the passage, and present a resistance
to the air. As soon as the air has accumulated sufficiently, it parts these folds
and produces an explosion. But at the same instant, —by virtue of their elas-

360 BHETOKIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

ticity, and the pressure from below being relieved, they meet again to give
rise to a fresh explosion. A series of these compressions and expansions, or
explosions, occasioned by the expansive force of the air and the reaction of
the glottis, produces the voice .... It is not necessary to obtain the explosion
of sound, that the glottis should be perfectly closed each time after its open-
ing; it suffices that it should oppose an obstacle to the air capable of develop-
ing its elasticity.48

Garcia was strongly supported in his theoretical views by Merkel, who
repeated Garcia's observations on his own voice and came to the same
conclusions.49

Throughout the remainder of the nineteenth century and down to
recent years experiments have continued, both with cadavers and with
models of the larynx. During the last half of the nineteenth century,
however, the results of experiments with cadavers began to be dis-
counted, for the results thus obtained were not held to be valid for
living tissue.50 Consequently, this line of research gradually diminished,
although progress continued to be made in experiments with artificial
laryngeal models, and anatomical studies added to information con-
cerning the morphology of the larynx.51 Most laryngeal models con-
tinued to be made of thin membranes stretched across a tube and had
little resemblance to the actual larynx, until Wethlo 52 and Ewald 53
constructed their cushion pipe models which they reported on in 1913,
Ewald had earlier come to the conclusion that the living vocal folds
were poorly represented by flat membranes. In his 1898 publication he
had compared them to thick tissue cushions with rounded edges. The
models which he and Wethlo built represented them by hollow in-
flatable cushions consisting of rubber stretched around a framework
of glass or metal, the frame being constructed to produce the desired
cushion conformation. Of these two, Ewald's model was superior, for
it permitted separate variation of the width of glottal opening and of
the intracushion air pressure. Hence, it provided greater flexibility for
experiment. It was a model patterned after Ewald's which Carhart
used for his later cushion-pipe experiments.54

In the meantime important developments were taking place in laryn-
geal 4viewing. This aspect of the history of laryngeal investigation has
been well surveyed by Moore 55 and will only be highlighted here.
Following Garcia the two principal lines of advancement were those of
laryngeal photography and stroboscopic viewing. Early attempts were
made to photograph the larynx almost as soon as Garcia's original
technique had been improved to provide for relatively adequate illu-
mination of the larynx. However, none of them seems to have been
very successful until French devised Ms laryngeal camera employing a
telescopic lens.56 Moore credits him with having succeeded in taking

THE RISE OF EXPERIMENTAL PHONETICS 361

some remarkably good pictures. Immediately following Garcia, at-
tempts were made to improve on his technique by employing binocular
viewing, so that depth might be added to the two-dimensional view.
As a natural concomitant, attempts to obtain stereoscopic pictures were
also made, and in 1899 Garel, employing a revised version of French's
camera, apparently succeeded/" though Moore comments that the
depth perception thus gained was slight.

Since the vibratory motion of the vocal folds is so rapid as to escape
observation by the unaided eye, the attempt to apply stroboscopic
illumination to laryngeal viewing was a natural development. The
principle of stroboscopic illusion had been well understood for
twenty years prior to Garcia's work. However, it was apparently not
applied to laryngeal viewing until 1878, when Oertel made the first
stroboscopic observations of the living larynx.58 One of the difficult
problems of strobolaryngoscopy was that of getting adequate illumina-
tion of the larynx. Oertel was apparently not satisfied with his early
attempts at stroboscopic viewing of the living vocal folds, since most
of his results are based on stroboscopic observations of models which
he constructed, rather than on observations of the larynx itself. Al-
though he published an article describing an improved strobolaryngo-
scope in 1895,59 the illumination problem was apparently not solved
in a satisfactory manner until Hegener constructed the apparatus which
he described in 1914.60 His strobolaryngoscope employed an arc
light of great intensity together with a system of condensing lenses.

A year earlier Hegener and Panconcelli-Calzia had succeeded in
taking stroboscopic motion pictures of the larynx.61 These pictures,
which were exhibited at the Phonetics Congress in 1914, were the begin-
ning of the work which Panconcelli-Calzia continued through the
twenties. His experiments resulted in much improved stroboscopic
motion pictures of the larynx, and in making colored motion pictures of
the larynx in 1929.63 A year later Russell and Tuttle published their
colored motion pictures of the vocal cords.63 Thus, by 1930 the ground-
work had been laid for the modern work with high-speed, motion
picture photography of the vocal folds, beginning in the late thirties
and continuing at the present time.

Study of the physiology of speech articulation owes much to the
pioneering, work of I/ Abbe Rousselot, Professor of French Philology
at Catholic Institute in Paris. Rosapelly had been the first to apply
kymographic recording to the study of speech movements.64 According
to Stetson, however, it was Rousselot who "developed the methods and
became the leader in the field of experimental phonetics and may be
considered the founder of the science of experimental phonetics."65
Rousselot's two volumes, published in 1897 and 1901,66 constitute the

362 BHETOKIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

first textbook to carry the words "experimental phonetics" in the title.
This work must have been a monumental effort for it was the first
attempt to bring together all of the widely scattered information on
the subject. As Rousselot himself comments in his introduction, it was
like trying to build an edifice from scraps and bits.

Rousselot's name is connected so closely with the development of
"physiological phonetics that it may come as a surprise to discover that
his book devotes almost equal space to acoustic phonetics. He not only
treats vowels, resonance, and intensity variations in speech, but he
includes an appendix (Appendix IV, Vol. II) describing procedures
for graphical analysis of sound waves by means of the Fourier Series,
together with computational schedules. His greatest influence was
without doubt on physiological phonetics. He was an ingenious builder
of apparatus, and not only adapted many of the techniques of the
physiological laboratory to the study of speech, but added refinements
of his own. He devised original apparatus as well.

The turn of the century must certainly be noted as a special land-
mark in the history of experimental phonetics. In 1902, only five years
after Eousselot published his first volume, Scripture, then at Yale, com-
pleted his voluminous (600 pages) Elements of Experimental Pho-
netics. Scripture's research interests were much more acoustical than
physiological, but his book contains a full account of the physiological
data and research methods of that day. For example, three chapters
are devoted to palatographic methods and results, and many more
palatograms were published than can be found in any other single
reference up to that time.87

The most notable American follower of the Rousselot tradition has
been Stetson. The first edition of his Motor Phonetics was published in
1928.08 The second edition, which was published posthumously in 1951,
summarizes his many contributions to the study of speech movements.
Stetson, like Rousselot, made extensive use of kymographic methods
and showed rare ingenuity in devising special types of equipment,
including highly sensitive tambours, for recording speech movements,
tongue contacts, and air pressure changes. His studies of the breathing
movements of speech deserve to be much more widely studied than
they are.69

In addition to the numerous variations of kymographic recording
methods, two techniques which deserve special mention are X-ray
photography andLpalatography. The application of X-ray techniques to
phonetic study seems to have been tried very soon after their discovery
by Roentgen in 1895. Russell 70 states that early attempts to study
vowels with X-ray were made by a considerable number of investi-
gators, including Grandgent, Weeks, Rousselot, Gutzmann, Stephen

THE RISE OF EXPERIMENTAL PHONETICS 363

Jones, and others. The double difficulties of expense and danger from
overexposure curtailed many of these early efforts and no publications
of findings resulted. In 1907 Earth and Grunmach were apparently the
first to publish plates of a complete set of vowel tongue positions.71
Shortly thereafter Scheier also published plates of German vowels and
of two consonants, [m] and [I].72 In 1914 Eijkmann published results of
some X-ray study on vowels.73 In this country, Russell was the first to
employ the technique extensively and to publish a large number of
X-ray photographs of vowel productions.74 Russell combined palato-
graphic techniques with his mid-sagittal X-rays to obtain lateral as well
as antero-posterior and vertical measurements of the vocal cavities for
the various vowels. Certain other investigators have questioned details
of Russell's procedures and the interpretations he put upon his results,75
but there can be little argument about the extensive nature of his
investigations. He claimed to have taken over 3000 X-ray pictures on
more than 400 subjects. The comprehensive nature of Russell's work is
shown by the fact that his measurements were employed by Dunn in
1950 7G for his theoretical calculations of vowel resonance. A number
of other investigators both in Europe and the United States have also
applied X-ray techniques to the study of vowels. Among American
investigators, Holbrook's work 77 has probably been most extensive,
next to that of Russell. Holbrook began his collection of X-ray photo-
graphs of speech articulation during the 1920's, although his material
was not published until some years later, following his death. He in-
vestigated not only the variations in tongue positions among normally
produced vowels, but also the effects of such variables as pitch change
and head posture. In addition, he made studies of both consonants and
vowels.

The other technique in physiological phonetics that deserves special
mention is that of palatography. We have observed that Scripture
treated the subject rather fully and that Russell made considerable
use of palatograms. Both Rousselot 7S and Scripture 79 give credit for
originating the technique to an Englishman by the name of Oakley-
Coles. Shortly thereafter Kingsley 80 introduced the use of the artificial
palate made from a plaster cast of the upper dental arch. He thus gave
the technique the essential form in which it has come down to the
present, although there have been many variations in the method of
making false palates and of recording and representing the areas of
tongue contact on the false palate. In his history of palatography, Moses
credits Rousselot with having made substantial improvements in the
technique 81 and apparently he used it considerably to study consonant
articulation. Aside from Russell's work, the most extensive application
of palatography, in this country during the period here considered, has

364 RHETOKIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

been by Muyskens,82 who used it to investigate areas of tongue-palatal
contact and variability of tongue-palatal contact for certain consonants.
The method has rather serious limitations, as Russell pointed out.53 It
is only useful for studying sounds produced by contacts of the tongue
with either the hard palate or the lingual surface of the teeth. The
method, moreover, severely restricts the phonetic context in which the
sounds to be studied can be produced, so that the positions obtained
may not be entirely representative of continuous speech. In addition,
palatographic data are difficult to quantify. Nevertheless, uses for the
method were still being found and improvements in technique were
still being made as late as 1940. &4

The third principal division of experimental phonetics, psychophys-
Ical phonetics, is the most recent addition to the area. In 1902, Scripture
recognized the importance of experimental research in the perception
of speech sounds, although almost no such work had been done prior
to that time. The three chapters which he devoted to perceptual prob-
lems are largely concerned with the structure of the ear, theories of
hearing, and the problems in speech perception which, as Scripture
saw them, needed Investigation.85

Controlled experimental work in this area seems to have begun about
1920 as a part of the long-time research program of the Bell Telephone
Laboratories, previously mentioned. The work done prior to 1930 con-
sisted mainly in investigating the effects on the perception of speech
of various factors, such as noise and distortion, which might act to
degrade its intelligibility. The systematic investigation of frequency
distortion was of particular significance to phoneticians because it pro-
vided data concerning the ranges of frequencies required to recognize
the various sounds of speech, consonants as well as vowels. The effects
of intensity variations on the recognition of speech sounds were also
studied. In much of this work done during the period prior to 1930 the
techniques and methods developed were quite as important as were
the data which resulted. For example, the methods of speech testing
which were devised set the pattern for much of the study of speech
perception which has been carried on in more recent years. A very good
summary of this early work at the Bell Telephone Laboratories has
been given by Fletcher in Speech and Hearing*1*

Much of the widespread activity and interest in speech perception
which characterizes present-day research in experimental phonetics is
a product of the last twenty years; the period since 1940 has been
marked by an especially rapid acceleration in this development, stimu-

THE RISE OF EXPERIMENTAL PHONETICS 365

lated in large measure by military communication problems. Hence,
the greater part of this story lies beyond the scope of this paper. It is
worth noting, however, that by 1930 the roots of this development were
already well established by the Bell Telephone Laboratories.

In bringing to a close our account of the development of experi-
mental phonetics, one other development needs notice. By 1930 ex-
perimental phonetics was definitely beginning to find comfortable liv-
ing and working quarters within the graduate departments of speech
which by that time had reached a state of flourishing growth. At Ohio
State, Russell's laboratory was well established. At Wisconsin, Robert
West was working vigorously. Through the efforts and foresight of
Seashore and the vigorous support of Mabie, experimental phonetics
was well established in the Speech Department at Iowa. The depart-
ment at Michigan was supporting the work of Muyskens.

Experimental phonetics has never been a closely knit and unified
field. The most casual reader of this chapter will observe that contri-
butions to this field have come from persons who have had widely
divergent professional specializations and training. Psychologists, physi-
ologists, linguists, physicists, communications engineers— all have had
a hand; all have contributed importantly to the growth and develop-
ment of experimental phonetics. This is no less true today. So far as
we can foresee this will continue to be the case, for no one group has a
monopoly on interest and curiosity concerning speech processes and
phenomena.

Research in experimental phonetics had been making progress for
many years before the first department of speech was established. It
would continue were all such departments to be suddenly abolished.
Nevertheless, the affinity which has developed between speech educa-
tion and a sizable part of experimental phonetics is surely no accident.
The association was initiated, and has been encouraged and strength-
ened, because certain wise planners in speech education saw a need
for the data which experimental phonetics could supply and because
they understood that a complete program of study and research in
speech required the laboratory methods and techniques which experi-
mental phonetics had acquired. That the association between experi-
mental phonetics and speech education has been mutually advanta-
geous is amply attested to by experience. That it was already well
established by 1930 is a tribute to the foresight of the founders of the
speech education movement.

366 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Notes

1. Clarence T. Simon, "Speech as a Science/' Quarterly Journal of Speech,
XXXVII (1951), 281-298.

2. See, for example, Edward C. Mabie, "The Responses of Theatre Audiences,
Experimental Studies," Speech Monographs, XIX ( 1952), 235-243, and Grant Fair-
banks, "Toward an Experimental Aesthetics of the Theater/' QJS, XXVIII (1942),
50-55.

3. Franklin H. Knower, "An Index of Graduate Work in the Field of Speech
from 1902 to 1934," SAf, II (1935), 1-49.

4. Donald E. Hargis, "The General Speech Major/' QJS, XXXVI (1950),
71-78.

5. "Clinical Certification Requirements of the American Speech and Hearing
Association/* Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, XVII (1952), 249-254.

6. Studies in Experimental Phonetics, ed. Giles W, Gray, Louisiana State Uni-
versity Studies, No. 27 (Baton Rouge, 1936).

7. Lyman S. Judson and A. T. Weaver, Voice Science (New York, 1942).

8. Bishop John Wilkins, An Essay Towards a Real Character and a Philosophi-
cal Language ( London, 1668). Information concerning this book and certain other
original materials which were not available to the author was drawn from a recent
paper by Homer Dudley and T. H. Tamoczy, "The Speaking Machine of Wolf-
gang \on Kempelen," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, XXII (1950),
151-166.

9. Wolfgang von Kempelen, Mechanismus der Menschlichen Sprache nebst der
Beschreibung seiner sprechenden Maschine (Vienna, 1791) Information and cita-
tion taken from Dudley and Tamoczy, op. cit

10. Christian Gottlieb Kratzenstem, "Sur la Naissance de la Formation des
Voyelles/' Journal de Physique, XXI (1782), 358-380. Information and citation
taken from Dudley and Tarnoczy, op. cit,

11. Wilfred Willis, "On Vowel Sounds, and on Reed-organ Pipes," Trans. Camb.
Phil Soc., Ill (1830), 231-268; also, Annalen der Phystk und Chemie, XXIV
(1832), 397.

12. Sir Charles Wheatstone, London and Westminster Review, XXVIII (1837),
27-41; also Wheatstone' s Scientific Papers (London, 1879).

13. L. Hermann, "Phonophotographisdhe Untersuchungen, I," Pfluger's Archiv
fiir die gesammte Physiologic, XLV (1889), 582; "Phonophotographische Un-
tersuchungen, II," ibid., XL VII (1890), 44; "Phonophotographische Untersuchun-
gen, III/' ibid., XLVII (1890), 347.

14. E. W. Scripture, Researches in Experimental Phonetics,, Carnegie Institute of
Washington Publication, No. 44 (1906); and Elements of Experimental Phonetics
(New York, 1902).

15. Georg S. Ohm, Poggendorfs Annalen der Physik, LIX (1843), 497. Cited
in D. C. Miller, Anecdotal History of the Science of Sound (New York, 1935), p.
104.

16. H. von Helmholtz, Sensations of Tone, ElhVs translation from the 4th Ger-
man edition of 1877 (New York, 1912).

17. See, for example, Lord Rayleigh, The Theory of Sound (London, 1877),
p. 477.

18. E. W. Scripture, "The Nature of the Vowels," QJS, XXII (1936), 359-
366.

19. Irving B. Crandall, "The Sounds of Speech/* Rell System Technical Journal,
IV (1925), 586-626.

20. W. Koenig, H. K. Dunn, and L. Y. Lacy, "The Sound Spectrograph/' /ASA,
XVIII (1946), 19-49, also, L. G. Kersta, "Amplitude Cross-section Representa-
tion from the Sound Spectrograph/' /ASA, XX (1948), 796-801.

21. Sir R. A. S. Paget, "The Production of Artificial Vowel Sounds/* Proceedings

THE RISE OF EXPERIMENTAL PHONETICS 367

of the Royal Society, CII (1923), 752-753, "The Nature and Artificial Produc-
tion of Consonant Sounds/* ibid., CVI (1924), 150-174; Human Speech (New
York, London, 1930).

22. Paget, Human Speech, pp. 275-298.

23. See, for example, H. K Dunn, "The Calculation of Vowel Resonances, and
an Electrical Vocal Tract/' JASA, XXII (1950), 740-752; and T. Chiba and
M. Kajiyama, The Vowel, Its Nature and Structure (Tokyo, 1941).

24. Homer Dudley, R. R. Riesz, and S. S. A. Watkms, "A Synthetic Speaker/'
Journal of the Franklin Institute, CCXXVII (1939), 739-764; and Dudley,
"Remaking Speech/' JASA, XI (1939), 169-177.

25. J. Q. Stewart, "An Electrical Analogue of the Vocal Cords/' Nature, CX
(1922), 311-312.

26. (New York, 1929)

27. I. B. Crandall and D. MacKenzie, "Analysis of the Energy Distribution of
Speech," Physical Review, XIX (1922), 221-232.

28. C. F. Sacia, "Speech Power and Energy," Bell System Technical Journal,
IV (1925), 627-641.

29. C F. Sacia and C. J. Beck, "The Power of the Fundamental Speech
Sounds," Bell Sys. Tech. Jour., V (1926), 393-403.

30. Leon Scott, "Phonautographe et Fixation Graphique de la Voix/' Cosmos,
XIV (1859), 314.

31. K. R. Koenig, Quelques Experiences d'Acoustique (Pans, 1882).

32. E. L. Nichols and Ernest Merntt, "The Photography of Manometric Flames/'
Phys. Rev., VII (1898), 93-101; and J. G. Brown, "New Records of Sound
Waves from a Vibrating Flame/' ibid., XXXIII (1911), 442-446.

33. See Hermann, op. cit.

34. Researches in Experimental Phonetics.

35. Milton Metfessel, "Technique for Objective Studies of the Vocal Art,"
Psychological Monographs, XXXVI (1926), 1-40.

36. Miller, The Science of Musical Sounds, pp. 78-88.

37 W. D. B. Duddell, "Oscillographs/' The Electrician, XXXIX (1897),
636-638.

38. A. Blondel, "Oscillographes: Nouveaux Appareils pour FEtude des Oscilla-
tions Electriques Lentes," Comptes Rendus, CXVI (1893), 502-506.

39. O. Henrici, "A New Harmonic Analyzer," Philosophical Magazine, XXXVIII
(1894), 110-121.

40. E. C. Wente, "A Condenser Transmitter as a Uniformly Sensitive Instrument
for the Absolute Measurement of Sound Intensity/' Phys. Rev., X (1917), 39-63.

41. Speech and Hearing, p. 26.

42. Wolfgang Metzger, "The Mode of Vibration of the Vocal Cords," Psych.
Mon.9 XXXVIII (1928), 83.

43. Johannes Midler, "Von Stimme and Sprache/* Handbuch der Physiologie
des Menschen, 2 vols. (Coblenz, 1840).

44. See, for example, Robert West, "The Nature of Vocal Sounds," QJSE, XII
(1926), 244-295; also, "A View of the Larynx through a New Stroboscope/*
QJS, XXI (1935), 455-461.

45. Manuel Garcia, "Observations on the Human Voice," Phil. Mag., X (1855),
218.

46. Manuel Garcia, ^Rapport sur Manuel Garcia, Memoire sur la voix/* Comptes
Rendus, XII (1841), 638.

47. Paul Moore, "A Brief History of Laryngeal Investigation/' QJS, XXIII
(1937), 531-564.

48. Wolfgang Metzger, "The Mode of Vibration of the Vocal Cords," Psych.
Mon., XXXVIII (1928), 88.

49. C. L. Merkel, Die Functionen, des Menschlichen Schlundes und Kehlkopfes
usw. nach eigenen pharyngolaryngoskopischen Untersuchungen (Leipzig, 1862).

368 RHETOBIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

50. See, for example, J. R, Ewald, "Die Physiologic des Kehlkopfs," Heymans
Handbuch der Laryngologie (Vienna, 1898), I, 165.

51. See, for example, B. Frankel, "Studien zur femeren Anatomic des Kehlkopfs,"
Archive fur Laryngologie und Rhinologie, I (1893), 1-24.

52. F. Wethlo, "Versuche mit Polsterpfeifen," Parsow-Schaeffer's Beitrage, VI
(1913), 268-280.

53. J. R. Ewald, "Zur Konstruction von Polsterpfeifen," Pfluger's Arch., CLII
(1913), 171-186.

54. Raymond Carhart, "Infra-glottal Resonance and a Cushion Pipe," SM, V
(1938), 65-96; "The Spectra of Model Larynx Tones/' SM, VIII (1941), 76-84.

55. Paul Moore, op. cit.

56. Thomas R. French, "On a Perfected Method of Photographing the Larynx,"
New Jork Medical Journal, XL (1884), 653 ff.

57. J. Garel, "La Photographic Stereoscopique du Larynx," Annales des Mais
de L'Oreilte, XXV (1899), 702 ff.

58. M. J. Oertel, "Ueber eine neue Laryngostroboskopische Untersuchungs-
metnode," Centralblatt fur die medizinische Wtssenschaft, XVI (1878), 81-82.

59. M. J. Oertel, "Das Laryngo-stroboskop und die Laryngostroboskopische Un-
tersuchung," Arch. Laryng. Wiin,, III (1895), 1-16.

60. J. Hegener, "Ein neues Laryngoskop," Vox, XXIV (1914), 1-10.

61. J. Hegener and C. Panconcelli-Calzia, "Eine Einfache Kinematographie und
die Strobokinematographie der Stimmlippenbewegungen beim Lebenden," Vox,
XXIII (1913), 81-82.

62. C. Paneoncelli-Calzia, "Die Erforschung der Stimmlippentatigkeit der Kine-
matographie," Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift, LIX (1933), 891 ff.

63. G. O. Russell and C. H. Turtle, "Color Movies of Vocal Cord Action,"
Laryngoscope, XL (1930), 549-552.

64. See P. J. Rousselot, Principes de Phonetique Experimental (Paris, 1897),
I, 98. Rousselot gives credit to Rosapelly for being first, but most writers since
have credited Rousselot himself with being the first to make extensive use of kymo-
graphic procedures and to demonstrate their usefulness in phonetic study.

65. R. H. Stetson, Motor Phonetics, 2nd ed. (Amsterdam, 1951).

66. P. J. Rousselot, Principes de Phonetique Experiment ale, I (Paris, 1897), II
(Paris, 1901).

67. Chs. 21-23.

68. R. H. Stetson, Motor Phonetics, Archives Neerlandaises de Phonetique Ex-
perimentale, III (1928), 1-216.

69. R. H. Stetson and C. V. Hudgins, "Functions of the Breathing Movements
in the Mechanism of Speech," Archives Neerlandaises de Phonetique Experimentale,
V (1930), 1-30.

70. G. O. Russell, The Vowel (Columbus, 1927), p. 49.

71. E. Earth and E. Grunmach, "Roentgenographische Beitrage zur Stimmphy-
siologie," Arch. Laryng. Bhin., XIX (1907), 396-407.

72. M. Scheier, "Die Bedeutung des Roentgenverfahrens f. d. Physiologic der
Stimme und Sprache,>? Arch. f. Laryngologie, XXII (1909), 175.

73. L. P. H. Eijkmann, "Tongue Position in the Pronunciation of Some Vowels
by Roentgen-Photographs," Vox, XXIV (1914), 129-143.

74. G. O. Russell, The Vowel (Columbus, 1927); Speech and Voice (New
York, 1931).

75. See, for example, S. N. Trevino and C. F. Parmenter, "Vowel Positions as
Shown by X-ray," QJS, XVIII (1932), 351-369.

76. H. K. Dunn, "The Calculation of Vowel Resonances, and an Electrical Vocal
Tract," JASA, XXII (1950), 740-753.

77. R. T. Holbrook and F. J. Carmody, "X-ray Studies of Speech Articulation,"
University of California Publications in Modem Philology, XX (1937-1941), 187-
237.

78. P» J. Rousselot., Principes de Phonetique Experimentale, I, 53.

THE RISE OF EXPERIMENTAL PHONETICS 369

79. Elements of Experimental Phonetics, p. 92.

80. Norman W. Kmgsley, "Illustrations of the Articulations of the Tongue,"
Internationale Zeitschrift fur Allgemeine Sprachwtssenschaft, III (1887), 225-248.

81. Elbert R. Moses, Jr., "A Brief History of Palatography," QJS, XXVI ( 1940),
615-625.

82. John Henry Muyskens, "The Hypha," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-
versity of Michigan, 1925.

83. G. O. Russell, "First Preliminary X-ray Consonant Stud>," JASA, V ( 1934),
247-251.

84. See, for example, Elbert R. Moses, Jr , Interpretations of a ISew Method of
Palatographij (Ann Arbor, 1940); also, R. H Stetson, C V. Hudgins, and E. R.
Moses, Jr., "Palatograrns Change with Rates of Articulation," Arch. NeerL Phon.
Exper, XVI (1940), 52-61.

85. Elements of Experimental Phonetics, Chs. 12-14.

86. Part IV, Chs 3-6.

JL / Some Symbolic Systems for Teaching
the Deaf

c. v. HUDGINS

Deaf children never acquire speech and language by the natural
methods since they never hear the acoustic stimuli which normally
guide the hearing child in his speech development. The absence of
hearing, therefore, deprives the deaf child of the most vital sensory
avenue for normal speech development. It is possible to substitute
vision, touch, and the kinaesthetic sense for hearing, but special meth-
ods, special teaching skills, and special devices are necessary. Any
remnant of hearing may also be employed to advantage provided that
hearing aids and acoustic training are made available.

One of the essential devices for teaching speech to the deaf is a
precise system of graphic symbols for accurately representing the
speech sounds. Such a system is essential, first, because of the con-
venience in presenting to the child the sounds both individually and
in combination, and second, because of the intimately related problems
of reading. The more nearly the symbolic system approaches that used
in the orthography of the language the better, because of the problem
of making the transition from one to the other in reading. An ideal
symbolic system is one that provides a unique symbol for each sound
in the language. The idiosyncrasies of English orthography make it
especially essential to employ a more precise system in teaching speech
to the deaf. The problem is less acute for most of the European
languages.

During the early stages of speech training the deaf child must learn
to articulate each sound in the language. In addition he must learn to
combine them into syllables, words, and phrases, a process that involves
a smooth transition from one sound to another in an orderly sequence.
A symbolic system that accurately represents the sounds becomes the
medium of communication between the teacher and the child in speech
teaching. Ultimately, however, it becomes necessary to make the tran-
sition from the symbolic system to the orthography of the language.

370

SYMBOLIC SYSTEMS FOR TEACHING THE DEAF 371

Since complete identity of the two systems is impossible in English,
experience has taught us that a symbolic system the characters of which
bear a close resemblance to those of the English alphabet is the most
practical for use with deaf children.

The oral method of teaching the deaf was permanently established
in America during the 1860's. Sporadic efforts previous to this time had
Veen unsuccessful but it was not until the founding of the Clarke
School at Northampton, Massachusetts, in 1867, that "oralism" became
firmly established. Several other oral schools, including the Lexington
Avenue School in New York, the Horace Mann Day School in Boston,
and the Mystic Oral School in Mystic, Connecticut, followed in the
late 1860*s and early 1870's. Education of the deaf previous to the
establishment of these schools had been conducted largely through the
medium of the sign language, the manual alphabet, and reading and
writing. The success of oralism as a method of teaching the deaf in
Europe, especially in Germany and England had exerted little or no
influence upon the education of the deaf in America prior to the estab-
lishment of the schools named above. The manual method of teaching
was well entrenched by the time oralism was introduced. It had been
brought to America by Gallaudet with the founding of the first Amer-
ican School for the Deaf at Hartford, Connecticut, which occurred
in 1817.

From the beginning of oralism in America the need for an adequate
symbolic system was felt. The early teachers were in a real sense pio-
neers; they found no readily usable methodology and were forced to
improvise their own. The only symbolic system available at the time
was the English alphabet and such diacritical marks as were available
in dictionaries.

Visible Speech

The first systematic effort to apply a truly phonetic system to the
teaching of speech to deaf children in America was the application of
Melville Bell's Visible Speech Symbols. Graham Bell, son of Melville
and thoroughly familiar with his father's system, had tried the symbols
in two small English schools for the deaf with some success. In 1871
while lecturing at Boston University he was invited to lecture on the
Visible Speech System at the Horace Mann School in Boston.
Some of the teachers of the Clarke School attended these lectures and
in the spring of the following year Bell was invited to Northampton
for the purpose of introducing the system there. He spent the months
of March and April, 1872, at the Clarke School lecturing and devoting
four hours each day to instruction of the teachers and supervising the
work of speech teaching in the classrooms. He also lectured to the

372 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

teachers of the American School for the Deaf at Hartford during this
period.1

Bell was enthusiastically received and high hopes were held for the
success of his method. At his suggestion an experimental program was
inaugurated at the Clarke School in Northampton for testing the value
of the Visible Speech System as a means of teaching speech to the deaf.
The program, intended to extend over a period of three years, called for
the entering classes to be trained first in the recognition and use of the
Visible Speech Symbols, but the pupils were not to be permitted to talk
during this period, Communication, meanwhile, was to be carried on
by means of writing. Syllable drills and vocal exercises introduced by
the Visible Speech Symbols were to be used until the pupils had be-
come able automatically to reproduce at sight any combinations of
sounds presented. At the end of this preliminary training period the
transition from the written symbol to the spoken word was to be easily
accomplished. It was expected that this transition would be immediate
and simple. Familiarity with the symbolic system was all that was
deemed necessary to bridge the gap between visual perception of the
sequence of symbols and the combinations of speech sounds symbolized.

The method was not a success. The annual reports of the Principal
of Clarke School on the progress of the experiment during the early
stages were enthusiastic; later, there were expressions of considerable
doubt especially as to the propriety of depriving pupils of speech dur-
ing the preliminary period. The experiment was abandoned at the end
of the three years. Visible Speech Symbols were used, however, for
several years, and then discontinued in 18842 In its place was substi-
tuted the system commonly known as the "Northampton Charts," which
will be described later.

The Visible Speech System, meanwhile, was spreading to other
schools. Graham Bell, who had been appointed Professor in the School
of Oratory, Boston University, was deeply interested in the oral educa-
tion of the deaf. In 1872 he published "Visible Speech as a Means of
Communicating Articulation to Deaf Mutes.'7 3 This paper contains a
rather complete explanation of the system and instructions for apply-
ing it in teaching speech to the deaf. Bell attended conventions of
teachers of the deaf, lecturing and demonstrating the system. He also
operated a small private school for the deaf children at Salem, Massa-
chusetts, and continued to train teachers in his method. In 1874 Bell
organized the Convention of Visible Speech Teachers, which held its
first meeting in Worcester, Massachusetts, in January, 1874. 4 A second
meeting was held in June of the same year.5 By this time, according to
the proceedings of this convention, the Visible Speech System had
spread to six schools in addition to the Boston School where it was first

SYMBOLIC SYSTEMS FOR TEACHING THE DEAF 373

introduced, and it was reported that thirty teachers had^ already been
trained in the use of the system. The Organization of Visible Speech
Teachers later became Articulation Teacheis of the Deaf. There is no
record of any further meeting of this group until 1884.° In that year,
the convention was held at the Lexington Avenue School in New York
City. According to the proceedings of the meeting, Visible Speech was
no longer considered as the "white hope'7 of the articulation teachers.
It continued to have loyal advocates, but it is of interest that at this
convention Miss Alice Worcester of the Clarke School read her famous
paper describing the system which had superseded Visible Speech
Symbols at the Clarke School.7 This, the "Northampton Chart Sys-
tem/7 was to become the most widely used symbolic system in Amer-
ica. It is still, in a slightly revised form, considered the most practical
system available.

Bell's Visible Speech System was an attempt to express graphically
the physiological aspects of the processes of articulation. The various
articulators and the various areas of the vocal canal in cross section are
represented by appropriate symbols (see Figures 11 and 13). Combina-
tions of these symbols can be formed to represent any combination of
sounds. Thus the system probably comes as near to being a universal
alphabet as any in existence. It has serious limitations, however, in that
it is unlike any known system of writing. It was later greatly modified
by Sweet and others in the development of the International Alphabet.

Teachers of the deaf generally concede that Visible Speech is of con-
siderable value to the teachers themselves in that it provides an accu-
rate knowledge of the formation and development of the speech sounds.
Hence, its usefulness in training speech teachers in the practical prob-
lems of teaching the deaf to speak is still acknowledged. As a transcrip-
tion system, however, it is clumsy and impracticable. Its most serious
limitation is that the symbols are totally different from those of English
orthography. Deaf children who are taught to speak by means of the
symbols must learn ultimately to translate them into the common Eng-
lish forms. This imposed an additional task which seemed in the end
unnecessary.

A commentary on the application of the Visible Speech System in
teaching speech to the deaf is supplied by Bell himself in the form of
a summary of answers to a questionnaire which he sent out to seventy-
six schools for the deaf in the United States and Canada in 1888. 8 Bell
had been invited to appear before the Royal Commission appointed by
the British Government to inquire into the condition of the deaf in
England. He was asked to report on the education of the deaf in Amer-
ica. Among the questions in his lengthy questionnaire were the follow- '
ing: "Has Visible Speech been employed in your institution?" and *ls it

374

RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

still employed?" 9 Fifty-one replies were received from the seventy-six
institutions canvassed. Of these, thirty-one reported that Visible Speech
had been tried out in one or more classes. Eighteen schools reported
that it was still being used. The remaining fourteen reported that it had
been abandoned. Among these fourteen were Clarke School and the
Horace Mann School in Boston where it had been originally initiated
by Bell himself. Predominant among the reasons for abandoning it

/ - '

*•* ,- /

- :•;>

I (

* '-. 3 , U : f

FIG. 11. Profile Cross Section of the Head and Neck with the Speech Organs
Indicated by the Shaded Lines. From BelFs The Mechanism of Speech, p. 53.

were statements like the following: "The system seems to be too diffi-
cult to be understood by young pupils"; "We used it for two years, it
was abandoned because it takes too much of the pupil's time"; "No
longer used except in training teachers"; "Too complicated and easily
forgotten."

A brief description of the Visible Speech Symbols is presented below.
Figures 11, 12, 13, and 14 show the Symbols and the devices for explain-

SYMBOLIC SYSTEMS FOR TEACHING THE DEAF 375

ing them to deaf children. These are the charts used by Graham Bell in
a lecture delivered at the First Summer Meeting of the American Asso-
ciation to Promote the Teaching of Speech to the Deaf, in 1891. The
lecture, "Visible Speech as Taught to the Deaf/' was published in the
"Report of Proceedings" of that meeting and later republished in The
Mechanism of Speech.10

Figure 11 shows the profile cross section of the head and neck with
the speech organs indicated by the shaded lines. The symbols below the
profile represent the shaded lines independent of the drawing. These
are the segments that make up the Visible Speech Symbols. They sym-
bolize (1) voice, (2) back tongue, (3) front tongue, (4) point of
tongue, (5) lip, (6) nose, (7) puff of air, (8) center aperture, and (9)
shut position.

t> 01 & 3
6> 01 $ 3
6> €11 €! D

q to *£ 12

, n o o n c^x

(jj u (jj 3

J3 '+ AT W76

u u n

17 1* It

1* It 20

FIG. 12. Visible Speech Symbols Representing the English Consonants. From
Bell's The Mechanism of Speech, p. 71.

Figure 12 shows the mechanism of the English consonants as ex-
plained to the deaf:

(1) p (put, cup}: Lips shut, followed by a puff of air.

(2) b (but, cub): Lips shut, followed by voice.

(3) m (man, came): Lips shut, voice, nose.

(4) / (file, huff): Lips divided— aperture.

(5) t (to, not): Point shut

(6) d (do, nod): Point shut, voice.

(7) n (no, run) : Point shut, voice, nose.

(8) t? (we, love): Lap divided— aperture, voice*

376

HHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

(9) k (key, sick): Back shut, puff of air.

(10) g (&°> fog); Back shut, voice.

(11) ng (lung): Back shut, voice, nose.

(12) wh (whet): Lip center—aperture, back center— aperture.

(13) I (lull): Point divided— aperture, voice.

(14) th (thin): Point divided— aperture, front center—aperture.

(15) th (then, with): Point divided— aperture, front center— aperture,
voice.

(16) w (wet): Lip center—aperture, back center— aperture, voice.

(17) s (so, hiss): Point center— aperture, front center— aperture.

(18) z (zone, his): Point center— aperture, front center— aperture, voice.

(19) sh (she): Front center— aperture, point center— aperture. Also oc-
curs after point shut in ch (church) .

(20) s (measure); z (azure): Front center— aperture, voice. Also occurs
after point shut voice in j (judge) .

(21) h, gh (hue, few): Front center— aperture. There is no English letter
for this sound.

(22) y (you): Front center— aperture, voice.

(23) r in pr (pry): Point center— aperture. There is no English letter for
this voiceless r.

(24) r (run) : Point center— aperture, voice.

(25) h (heat, hope, etc.): Throat large— aperture.

•*•:***
«*V

FIG. 13. Cross Section Profile Used to Explain the English Vowel System to Deaf
Children. From Bell's The Mechanism of Speech, p. 64.

SYMBOLIC SYSTEMS FOR TEACHING THE DEAF 377

Figure 13 is designed to explain to the deaf the vowel symbols. The
vertical line through the center of the profile divides front and back
parts of the tongue and oral cavity. The dots on the right and left of the
line indicate these parts. The dots appear on the symbols in connection
with the "voice" symbol to indicate the position of the tongue in forming
the vowel. A horizontal line through the "vowel" stem indicates that lip
action is involved.

The symbols below the drawing indicate (1) voice, (2) back of
tongue, (3) back of tongue, (4) both back and front of tongue
(mixed), (5) back and front (mixed), (6) back and front (mixed),
(7) front of tongue, (8) front of tongue, (9) lips.

Figure 14 shows the symbols that represent the position for the Eng-
lish vowels.

1)11

1. 1 1

1. 1

* * ' i

FIG. 14. Visible Speech Symbols Representing the English Vowels. From Bell's
The Mechanism of Speech, p. 74.

(1) High back, wide, round: Vowel in foot., put.

(2) High back, round: Vowel in pool, move.

(3) High front: Vowel in eel, eat.

(4) High front wide: Vowel in ill, build.

(5) Mid back, round, glide towards "high back": Diphthongal vowel
in pole, coal.

(6) Mid front, glide towards "high front": Diphthongal vowel in ale,
eight.

(7) Low back wide, round: Vowel in doll, what,

(8) Low back round: Vowel in all, paw.

(9) Low front: Vowel in shell, head.
(10) Low front wide: Vowel in hat, shall.

378 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

(11) Low back wide: Vowel in ah, father.

(12) Mid back wide: Vowel in ask, path.

(13) Low mixed wide: Vowel in her, pearl.

(14) Mid back: Vowel in come, rough.

(15) Mid back wide, glide towards high back round: Diphthongal vowel
in cow, bough.

(16) Low back round, glide towards high front: Diphthongal vowel in
oil, boy.

(17) "The sound for h only occurs before the vowel , . . The deaf pupil
is taught that the mouth positions for h is always the same as that of
the succeeding vowel ... for example: Contrast the h in he and who."

The Whipple Natural Alphabet

During the time that the Visible Speech System was being introduced
as a method of teaching articulation to deaf children, a similar system
although apparently developed independently, was being developed
and used in a small family school in Connecticut. The author of this
system, Zera C. Whipple, was the grandson of Jonathan Whipple who
had gained notice forty years earlier for having successfully taught his
own congenitally deaf son to spealc and read the lips. The Whipple
Home school was established at Ledyard, Connecticut, in 1871.11 The
pupils were taught orally, following the improvised methods devised by
Jonathan Whipple in teaching his son forty years before. The teachers
were members of the family, including the elder Jonathan, but responsi-
bility for the project rested upon Zera Whipple. The latter, becoming
dissatisfied with the methods and progress of the school, set himself to
the task of developing a better system. During a session at the State
Normal College at New Britain, Connecticut, he conceived the idea of
a "natural phonetic alphabet" for teaching deaf children. Upon his
return to the family school he developed and improved upon his orig-
inal idea with the result that the "Whipple Natural Alphabet" became
a successful device for teaching speech and lip reading. The system was
successfully employed in the Whipple School from 1872 to 1879.12 The
number of pupils had increased when in 1874 the school moved to
larger quarters in the town of Mystic. Zera Whipple was its director
until his death in 1879. The school then changed hands and apparently
the Whipple System was abandoned.

There is little evidence available to indicate that the system had any
currency outside the Mystic School, One member of the family, N. F.
Whipple, a former principal of the Mystic School, was appointed
"Articulation Teacher" in the California School for the Deaf in 1887.13
Apparently Zera Whipple, preoccupied with making the school a suc-
cess, had little time for publicizing his system.14 He did, however, issue
a brief description of the method published first in the Report to the

SYMBOLIC SYSTEMS FOR TEACHING THE DEAF 379

Connecticut Board of Education in 1873, and later republished in
American Annals of the Deaf (1891, XXXVI, pp. 288-291). Whipple
appeared at few of the professional meetings of teachers of the deaf
during the period he was successfully applying his system. He attended
the Second Convention of Visible Speech Teachers held in Worcester in
June 1874, and ". . . gave an account of the Natural Alphabet invented
by himself for the purpose of teaching articulation and lip reading to
deaf mutes. He also read a paper on lip reading." 15 It would be of his-
torical interest to know further details concerning this meeting, and of
the discussions that must have followed, for both the Visible Speech
System of Bell and the Natural Alphabet of Whipple were presented at
the meeting. The quotation above, however, taken from a summary of
the Proceedings of the meeting is the sole reference available.

Aside from the quotation, the principal source of information con-
cerning Zera C. Whipple and his system is contained in a paper written
twelve years after his death by a former pupil. It was undertaken at the
request of the American Association to Promote the Teaching of Speech
to the Deaf, and published by that organization as: "Circular of Infor-
mation No. 3, 1892." The title of the work is The Whipple Natural
Alphabet with a Memoir of the Inventor. Its author, Miss Daisy M.
Way, became a pupil of Whipple at the age of eight years. Miss Way
describes the origin and development of the method, and gives a de-
tailed analysis of it. She considers that her own mastery of speech and
lip reading is a prime example of the efficiency of the Whipple method
of teaching deaf children.

The Whipple system, like Visible Speech, is an effort to portray the
formation of individual speech sounds by representing graphically the
physiological positions assumed by the articulatory organs as the sounds
are produced. Whipple made use of both the profile cross section of the
oral cavity and the front view of the face. Hie symbols shown in Figure
16 were taken from a paper by Miss Way and represent a revised form
of the Alphabet used in the later development of the system.16 Mr.
Whipple's own definition of the system from the same paper (page 211 )
follows;

The letters of the natural alphabet are pictorial of the organs of speech
placed in relative positions, such as would be assumed by those organs in
speaking the required sound. In other words, each letter of this alphabet is
a reminder to the person who sees it to put certain parts of the mouth in
certain positions relative to each other in order to produce a certain elemen-
tary sound of the language.

Figure 15 shows Whipple's physiological chart which he considered
to be the basis for the symbols, primarily the consonants, that can be
represented in profile view. He makes no effort to show any of the

380 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

vowels in profile; instead, they are represented by the apertures made
by the lips as seen directly from the front.

FIG, 15. Diagram Devised for Use with the Whipple Alphabet.

Figure 16 shows the twenty-six letters of the English alphabet written
in the characters of the "Natural Alphabet/' In addition are shown dia-
graphsj compound consonants, vowels, and diphthongs, which are not
contained in the English alphabet and which usually require diacritical
markings. The surd and sonant consonant series are indicated by light
and heavy lines.

The Northampton Charts

Six years of experimentation with the Visible Speech Symbols con-
vinced the teachers of the Clarke School of their impracticability. It
was therefore relunctantly abandoned and in its place was substituted
the system that has become known as the Northampton Charts. It was
agreed that the Visible Speech Symbols were valuable in giving teach-
ers an intimate understanding of the proper formation of the speech
jounds, but that the system was not successful as a device for teaching

»X

20 28

» a

U J7

33 £

COMBINATIONS

Cn(f)

IRorTOt J

ADDITIONAL VOWEI* SOUNDS.

;

FIG. 16. Whipple's "Natural Alphabet" Symbols Used in Teaching Speech to
Deaf Children. From American Annals of the Deaf (1892), p, 210.

382 KHETOKIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

speech to young deaf children. A number of reasons were given for its
failure. In the first place, Visible Speech Symbols themselves do not
direct the speech organs. Pupils must be taught these positions and then
learn to associate the symbols with the positions as in any other sym-
bolic system. In other words, the symbols are purely arbitrary until the
associations have been established. In the second place, it was argued
that much of the significance of the symbols cannot be explained to
small children even by making full use of the cross-section drawings of
the vocal mechanism. In this respect, therefore, the symbols remain
relatively arbitrary, because the child must be taught to imitate the
positions when Visible Speech Symbols are used as fully as under any
other circumstances. Finally, Visible Speech Symbols must be translated
ultimately into the English alphabet and this was considered a waste
of time. It was agreed that any system of diacritical markings, or any
symbolic system, is open to the same objections. They make undue
demands upon the memory, they are irrational and arbitrary. They
never occur in the primary readers, or other school literature; hence,
transition to English spelling must finally be made. Why not, therefore,
work out a system in which the English spellings are employed from
the beginning?

With these objections to other systems in mind, it was decided to
abandon all diacritical marks and symbolic systems and to use only the
letters and combinations of letters of the English alphabet to represent
the speech sounds. The system was developed at the Clarke School by
Miss Alice Worcester, special teacher of articulation. Miss Worcester
had been very enthusiastic over Visible Speech, and had given it a
thorough trial before abandoning it after six years for the "Northampton
Charts." The first public announcement of the new system was a paper
read by Miss Worcester before the Third Convention of Articulation
Teachers in New York in 1884. 1T A revised version of this paper was
published the following year in American Annals of the Deaf ( 1885,
XXX, pp. 6-21). A third version of the paper under the title, "Pronuncia-
tion at Sight/' was privately printed in 1885. 18 The present form of the
Northampton Charts are contained in a booklet by Yale,19 former Prin-
cipal of Clarke School.

In developing the Northampton Charts, Miss Worcester rationalized
thus; 20

Considering that written language as it meets our children in daily life comes
only in the form of letters and combinations of letters, my effort has been to
see how far it might be possible to lay aside all marks and symbols and to
deal directly with the problem in the form under which it presents itself. It
does, indeed, seem essential to have some standard representative for each

SYMBOLIC SYSTEMS FOB TEACHING THE DEAF 383

English sound. It is from this need, of course, that marks and symbols have
arisen,

Then her explanation of the system follows:

I, As far, then, as I have been able to discover any unfailing letter or spell-
ing which gives one of these sounds, I have used it as the foundation of work
upon each. These stand first in each group upon the chart. [See Charts, Figs.
7 and 8.] Where not even one invariable representative has been found for
a given sound, one of the most common is meant to stand in its place. But
next, and more needful, has been the attempt—

II. To make letters mark themselves for pronounciation, to the greatest
possible extent, by their position in words and their connection with other
letters. Take for example the sound of long a. The simplest and most nearly
invariable rule is that for monosyllables ending in "silent" e. When this vowel
sound is taught as an element, therefore, it is first represented to the pupil
in this way:— a— e. Work upon the combination at once fills these blanks with
consonant letters in endless variety;

c k
—a—e
pi t
—a—e
fc
—a—e
n m
—a—e
etc.

The quick teaching of the child's sight, which shows him that the relative
position and connection of the '—a—e remain unaltered, whatever the letters
may be which fill the other places or however they may be changed, make its
pronounciation a matter of established fact to him very speedily. Again a in
a similar position without the ey has always its short sound. Representing this
element, then, by the position of the letter which produces it,— a—, the child
fills blanks as before:

—a—
c t

— a—
m n
—a—
th t
—a—
etc.,

seeing more and more clearly, that the unchanging a is left always in a posi-
tion which will, in future, carry its own pronounciation with it to him. . . . The
child will see these letters in these relative positions all his life, where he wiE
see neither marks nor symbols. He has no small advantage, then, in being
independent of such helps. For just to such an extent that these rules apply,
the pronounciation of written language is not an act of memory but of sight.

384 RHETOBIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

III. Of important letters and spellings having more than one sound, for
whose pronounciation no fixed rules can be given, it is taught at once what
and how many sounds each has to be remembered and decided between. So,
if the pupil cannot be surely told, for example, when ow will have one sound
and when another, he may at least know that it will have one of two, and that
if his first pronounciation is wrong the second must be right. Such spellings
are repeated on the chart, each one standing in groups under every sound it
may represent. . . .

IV. The most common spellings of each sound are giouped so that they
may stand clearly together before the eye. . . .

V. The attempt has been made to represent on such a chart just those
rules for pronounciation which the elementary language of classes obliges
them to learn as early as possible. . . .

VI. To connect them [rules] so intimately with the very sight of letters
and act of speech that they shall not need to be remembered, but can be
made the base of a continual addition in the shape of short lists of exceptions
of rules that apply only to small classes of words.

CONSONANT SOUNDS
h—

wh w —

p b m

t d n 1 r

k g ng

c n(k)

f V

th th

s z

c(e) 2
cd) s
c(y) y

sh zh

x«ks

tch 2

i^e qu— kwh

dge

FIG. 17. Northampton Chart Showing Symbols for the English Consonants. In
examining the Chart it will be noted that the left-hand line is occupied by the
English breath consonants. From Yale, Formation and Development, p. 10.

SYMBOLIC SYSTEMS FOR TEACHING THE DEAF 385

Before she decided upon the final letter forms of the charts Miss
Worcester made an analysis of vocabularies found in elementary text-
books to determine ( 1 ) the frequency of spellings that conformed to
the rules as laid down for the charts; (2) the frequency of the spellings
that required an additional rule; (3) the number that conformed to the
charts by (a) crossing out a superfluous letter—for example the I in
calf; (&) showing the double force of a letter, for example deer, and
(c) showing the number that contradicts the charts, for example oe in
shoe. It was found in the sample thus analyzed that 76 per cent of the
words came directly under the rules of the charts; 5 per cent required

VOWEL SOUNDS

ob ob o~e aw ~o~

(r)u-e oa au

— o o(r)

ee -i~ a-e — e— -a—

-e , — y ai ea

ea ay

e-e

a(r) -u~

er
ir

— ,r
— or
— ur
—re

a— e i— e o— e ou oi u— e

ai igh oa ow oy ew

ay -y — o

FIG. 18. Northampton Chart Showing Symbols for the English Vowels. From
Yale, Formation and Development, p. 11,

at least one additional rule; 10 per cent required either the crossing out
of a letter, or showing the double force of a letter; and 10 per cent
contradicted the charts.21

In 1942, a group of teachers made an analysis of more than 5,000
words to determine to what extent the standard English spelling of
vowels contained in these words agreed with the Northampton Chart
spelling.22 The lists used were the International Kindergarten Union
List, 2,596 words, and the Thorndike Word List, 2,500 words. The
study was concerned only with the frequency of agreement with the

386

RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

primary Chart spellings; they thus ignored the supplementary rules
designed to go with the chart. It was found that the IKU List showed
an agreement of 75.2 per cent, while the Thorndike List showed an
agreement of 74 per cent. This analysis agrees surprisingly well with
the earlier analysis mentioned above by Miss Worcester. It may
be presumed that had the supplementary rules been taken into account
a similar agreement would have been found.

The present form of the Northampton Charts is shown in Figures 17
and 18. They have been revised only slightly since their original forms
were worked out by Miss Worcester in 1884. A key to the sounds rep-
resented in the Charts is presented in Table 1.

pin, cup

bin, cub

fen, bet

den, bed

come, bacfc

gum, bag

/an, safe

uan, saue

thi

thigh, bath

th*

thy., bathe

seal, race

seal, raise

shore, rush

TABLE 1

Consonants

azure, rouge

choke, rich

yoke, ridge

met, him

net, tliin

, thing

/aid, deal

raid,

wet,

yet,

when,

/jam,

Vowels

oo1
oo2
o-e
aw

ur
-o-

stool, threio
wool, book
pope, tone
awed, naught
part, alms
sun, ton
urge, first
hot, odd

u-e fuse* few

ee
-e-

4.
-a-
a-e
i-e
ou

beet, ease
let, edge
sit, is
pat, am
age, pay
bite, aisle
out, pother
oil, boy

A quotation from Caroline A. Yale, former Principal of Clarke School,
will serve as a description of the Charts:23

In examining the consonant chart it will be noted that the left-hand line is
occupied by the English breath consonants; the second line by the voiced
forms of the same sounds; the third by the nasal sounds. The horizontal
arrangement classifies these sounds according to formation. A dash following
a letter indicates that the sound is initial in a word or syllable.

In the vowel chart the upper line contains the scale of back round
vowels (those modified chiefly by the back of the tongue and rounded aper-
ture of the lips). The second line contains the scale of front vowels (those
modified chiefly by the front of the tongue) , The lowest line contains all of

SYMBOLIC SYSTEMS FOR TEACHING THE DEAF 387

the diphthongal sounds, for a and o, although previously appearing in the
scales to which their radical parts belong, are repeated here as being by their
compound nature properly classified with diphthongs.

.... The number of secondary spellings given under some of these vowels
might be increased, but in order to keep the chart from being cumbersome
we have omitted all spellings except those covering large classes of words.

Since their inception the Northampton Charts have been widely
accepted and employed in America wherever the oral method is used.
The original form has been modified in the hands of other teachers, but
the basic system remains the sarne? namely, that of using the letters of
the English alphabet and a few secondary rules to represent all of the
sounds of English speech. A survey made in 1942 24 showed that of
thirty-seven schools for the deaf with an enrollment of more than one
hundred pupils all except two were using the Northampton Charts.

At present on the part of some teachers, there is a tendency to return
to a system of diacritical marks. The movement has gained some sup-
port because lexicographers have adopted a standardized system of
markings. It is argued that the employment of diacritical marks not only
serves as an efficient symbolic system, but it also introduces the deaf
child to the dictionary at an early age. Advocates of the Northampton
Charts agree that the use of dictionaries is of great value, and that
pupils should be taught to use them as soon as possible. The Charts,
however, are of real value before pupils are able to use dictionaries,
and as well after, for no diacritical markings ever appear in the readers
or other textbook materials.

Notes

1. Caroline A. Yale, 'Years of Building (New York, 1931), p. 311.

2. Annual Reports, Clarke School for the Deaf, Nos. 5-16, 1872-1884.

3. A. G. Bell, "Visible Speech as a Means of Communicating Articulation to
Deaf Mutes," American Annals of the Deaf, XVII ( 1872), 1-21.

4. "Proceedings, First Convention of Teachers of Visible Speech/' Amer. Ann.
D.,XIX (1874), 90-100.

5. "Proceedings of Second Convention of Articulation Teachers," Amer. Ann.
D., XIX (1874), 217-219.

6. Proceedings of the Convention of Articulation Teachers of the Deaf (Albany,
N. Y., 1884), p. 162.

7. A. E. Worcester, "How Shall our Children be Taught to Read," ibid., pp. 81-
91. This paper was revised and published under the title, "Pronunciation at Sight,"
Amer. Ann. D, XXX (1885), 6-21.

8. A. G. Bell, Facts and Opinions Relating to the Deaf (London, 1888).

9. Ibid., p. vi.

10. A. G. Bell, The Mechanism of Speech (New York, 1906), pp. 51-75.

11. Report of the Mystic Oral School for the Deaf, 1896-1898, p. 9. I am
indebted to Dr. Clara M. H. McGuigan, former Superintendent of the Mystic Oral
School and cousin of Zera Whipple for making available a rare copy of the "Report,"

388 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

and also for pertinent information by personal correspondence concerning the de-
velopment of the Whipple Alphabet.

12. Daisy M. Way, The Whipple Natural Alphabet, with a Memoir of the In-
ventor. Circular of Information, No. 3. American Association to Promote the Teach-
ing of Speech to the Deaf (Washington, 1892).

13. Amer. Ann. D., XXXII (1887), 62.

14. The Whipple Natural Alphabet, pp. 22-23.

15. "Proceedings of Second Convention of Articulation Teachers of the Deaf
and Dumb," Amer. Ann. D., XIX ( 1874), 217-219.

16. "The Whipple Natural Alphabet in Kevised Form," Amer, Ann. D., XXVII
(1892), 206-214.

17. A. E. Worcester, "How Shall our Children be Taught to Read/' Proceedings
of the Contention of Articulation Teachers (Albany, New York, 1884), pp. 81-91.

18. A. E. Worcester, Pronunciation at Sight (Northampton, Mass., 1885), p. 17.

19. Caroline A. Yale, Formation and Development of Elementary English
Sounds (Northampton, Mass., 1929), p. 43.

20. A. E. Worcester (Pronunciation at Sight, pp. 9-13, and Yale, Formation and
Development, pp. 5-9.

21. Worcester, Pronounciation at Sight, p. 13.

22. Round Hill Round Table, "In Defense of the Northampton Charts/' Volta
Review, XLIV (1942), 487-490.

23. Yale, Formation 6- Development, pp. 11-12.

24. J. Utley and N. F. Walker, "Are the Northampton Charts Outmoded?"
Volta Rev., XLIV (1942), 485-487.

JLo Development of Education in Speech
and Hearing to 1920

CLARENCE T. SIMON

No historian can establish, the exact beginning point of special con-
sideration for those with speech and hearing handicaps. In fact, look-
ing backward through the centuries of man's growing knowledge of
himself and his ills, it seems impossible to say it actually began; in one
form or another, it has existed always. Inevitably, human dependence
on larynx and cochlea as communicative tools in the development of
social organizations and cultures implies some effort to surmount handi-
caps and eliminate errors. Though to today's highly-trained and pro-
fessionally-conscious therapists and educational experts, rehabilitation
may seem as modern as radio and the dream of atomic power, in reality
awareness of these difficulties and the need for help date from the
beginnings of human expression. Extant references are as old as written
records. Moses chose to rely on his more glib-tongued brothers,1 the
Ephraimites were detected by their inability to pronounce the sibilant
sh.2 Plutarch credits the Greek actor, Satyrus, with improving Demos-
thenes* harsh and monotonous voice as well as relieving his stuttering; 3
St. Mark reported the Master's cure of one "that was deaf and had an
impediment in his speech." *

Though it seems impossible to establish an actual beginning point,
the slow development of education for those with speech and hearing
difficulties clearly lies within a framework formed by men, ideas, and
events; procedures and programs in this special area follow the pattern
of the changes in philosophies and concepts occurring with accumu-
lated human experience. The perspective of time thus supports an
historical hypothesis that this special form of education became an or-
ganized reality only when the social, scientific, economic, and educa-
tional climates were fortuitous; that its present form in the United
States, as well as elsewhere, reflects the influence of a changing past5
Likewise, more than mere coincidence seems to have controEed the
crystallization of these programs at the precise time in the changing

889

390 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

pattern of man's culture when the need for their services reached a
height unknown in earlier and simpler days.

While instances of sporadic, usually isolated, attempts to aid the
handicapped are found in the records of all times and all civilizations,
true educational programs are a phenomenon of the twentieth century.
They came only with the merging of three great developments; appro-
priate social concepts, adequate knowledge, and an organismic ap-
proach. In view of this historical hypothesis, the various efforts and
programs recorded in these pages thus merely pinpoint the broad
philosophical changes occurring in a maturing civilization.

Historical Perspective

Appropriate Social Consciousness

Any student is well aware of the treatment accorded the handicapped
in early civilizations.0 Primitive societies valued their members mainly
in terms of physical contributions to the welfare of the tribe. One who
could fight, hunt, or build for the group was valuable; the one with a
sensory or motor handicap was not. Man's worth was determined by
his big muscle activity. Children who were potential hunters and
fighters were cherished, others all too often were abandoned or de-
stroyed. The inhabitants of ancient India threw their cripples into the
Ganges, the Spartans tossed theirs from a precipice.7 In both Greece
and Rome there were periods when custom demanded the killing of
the deaf.8 Primitive society rejected the handicapped.9

A millennium before the Christian era, however, some bright but
deservedly forgotten master of ceremonies discovered that the handi-
capped had some value as a source of humor for their more fortunate
brothers. As a result, well into the Christian era, feasts and court cere-
monies and country fairs were entertained and enlivened at least oc-
casionally by the antics of the crippled buffoons and the stuttering fools.
Though still rejected by society as useless and unfit, a few of the handi-
capped could trade rebuffs and ridicule for bread and butter.

Gradually through the centuries, however, the growing influence of
the great religions of the world encouraged a tradition of pity for the
unfortunate. Priests, monks, and leaders of many religions assumed
greater responsibilities for the handicapped, giving them a right to Me
and, occasionally, to some measure of care through charity. A hospital
for the blind was established by St. Basil at Caesarea, Cappadocia, in
the fourth century; St. Lymnee of Syria founded a refuge a cen-
tury later.10 The first attempt to teach the deaf recorded in any
European language was made by St. John of Beverly in the seventh

EDUCATION IN SPEECH AND HEARING 391

century. The Venerable Bede tells how this bishop made a mute speak
and was credited with a miracle.11 Succeeding centuries recorded spas-
modic instances of special attention to the handicapped. These, how-
ever, provided little more than asylum or refuge. It was far too early
for attempts to alleviate handicaps, or to educate those possessing them.

Pity for the handicapped and unfortunate, nurtured in religious
teachings, assumed new proportions in the thirteenth century. The
concept of "charitable deeds," which influenced the treatment of the
handicapped till relatively recent times, was established by the theolo-
gian and humanitarian, St. Thomas Aquinas. This remarkable scholar
combined two lines, one from Aristotle through the Greco-Roman tra-
dition and the other of Christian tradition and theology, to elaborate a
classification of fourteen acts of charity—seven spiritual acts and seven
corporeal acts. The seven spiritual were to Counsel, to Sustain, to
Teach, to Console, to Save, to Pardon, to Pray. The seven corporeal
acts were: I clothe, I give drink to, I feed, I free from prison, I shelter,
I assist in sickness.12 Subsequently, these acts became "good works"
with definite rewards to the doer both in this world and in the here-
after.

Though the handicapped did gain greater sympathy and care, there
was little concern for either rehabilitation or education of the unfortu-
nate. Actually, with this motivation of pity and charity, handicaps
assumed commercial value for begging. The records indicate that some
children were maimed for exploitation, and the concentrations of beg-
gars in public places, with their aggressive solicitations for alms, be-
came a general nuisance. The subsequent establishment of asylums
and homes, following the urgings of Hyperius of Ypres, may be re-
garded as an increase in the general welfare. In all likelihood, some of
the handicapped achieved greater comfort; undoubtedly, the doer of
"good deeds" was spared the sight of misery.

This system of charity, with its alms and asylums, improved the lot
of the handicapped during the centuries of its influence. Unfortunately,
however, it depended for its existence on immediate gain to the giver
through heightened religious and social prestige in this world and his
assurance of salvation in the next.13 Adequate and enlightened public
programs still were far in the future.14

Meanwhile, other events were contributing to the development of
a broader view of the place and needs of the handicapped. The decline
of feudalism, the signing of the Magna Carta, the Reformation, docu-
mented a growing philosophy of individualism and the significance of
an individual life. The explorations of the thirteenth and fifteenth
centuries and the later spread of scientific methodology and reasoning
accompanied and fostered a break with the traditions of the past

392 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

These, and many other events, foreshadowed the revolutions of the
eighteenth century in politics, economics, and social theories.

Thirteen struggling colonies wrote a unique document that made
strong and novel statements concerning the dignity and equality of
man, and claimed for each individual certain inalienable rights. The
people of France celebrated the fall of the Bastille. The English
Georges surrendered much of their power to the Cabinet Council of
the King, to give England at least the foundation of representative
government. Bullets and ballots supported the new concept of the
significance and the usefulness of the individual to the society of which
he is a part. With this recognition of usefulness came the corollary that
social and economic advantages impel training and special education,
with the responsibility belonging not to the church, not to the philan-
thropist, but to society itself.

It is not by accident, therefore, that this revolutionary eighteenth
century saw the beginning of publicly supported schools for the handi-
capped.15 Not asylums or refuges, but schools as a public responsibil-
ity. Apparently Louis IX, of France, made the first public effort to aid
the blind with the establishment of a hospital or refuge in Paris in
1260. 16 The first clearly defined school for the blind, however, opened
in 1585, again in Paris.17 Not until 1791, however, was this school taken
under the protection of the state to establish the education of the blind
as a public responsibility. The same year brought a public school in
England; in Boston the Perkins Institution and Asylum for the Blind
began its instruction in 1829. 1S

Early authenticated accounts of the teaching of the deaf date from
the early sixteenth century,19 growing in number, in both philosophical
and medical literatures, to reach noteworthy proportions by the middle
of the seventeenth. Apparently the earliest effective work in Europe
was in Spain in the middle of the sixteenth century. Pedro Ponce de
Leon, a Spanish Benedictine monk is reported to have taught the deaf
"to speak, read, write, reckon, pray, serve at the altar, know the Chris-
tian doctrine, and confess with a loud voice." In England, following the
publication of two tracts on deafness by Drjohn Bulwar ( 1644 and
1648), his friend, John Wallis, of Oxford, offereasMIFpfactical instruc-
tion, but only two students are known.20

These attempts, though limited, foreshadowed the development of
larger educational efforts which began during the eighteenth century.
In 1760, Thomas Braidwood opened a school in Edinburgh, using se-
cret, but largely oral methods. In 1783 he moved to London. About
1770, Abb6 Charles Michel de FEpee established a school in Paris
which employed sign language and the manual alphabet. A few years
later, 1778, Samuel Heinicke began instruction for the deaf and dumb

EDUCATION IN SPEECH AND HEARING 393

at Dresden, using the oral method,21 (moving later to Leipzig at the
request of the government), thus establishing what some authorities
name as the first public school for the deaf. "It is only after the middle
of the eighteenth century that the deaf in Europe may be said to have
come generally into the birthright of their education." 22

Clearly then, modern political and social democracy dawned in the
revolutionary eighteenth century. The handicapped—once rejected,
then ridiculed, and later pitied— reached the dignity of accepted use-
fulness. Appropriate social consciousness opened the way for training
and special education as a public responsibility.

Mere social consciousness, however, was not enough; training and
education depend on adequate knowledge of man's structures and
processes. Yet man's scientific study began far from himself, with the
stars; astronomy is the oldest science. In the history of the sciences,
physics has lagged behind astronomy and biology behind physics, with
psychology late indeed.23 Gradually, however, man began to know
himself. Nineteenth and twentieth century research in anatomy, neu-
rology, and psychology produced a constantly growing body of reliable
knowledge as a basis for the design of educational programs and the
extension of critical research.24

Organismic Approach

The modern approach to the education of persons handicapped in
speech and hearing depended also on a concept of the human being as
an organism, a functional entity— a concept developed only in the
twentieth century, some time after the appearance of monistic theories
in the natural sciences.

Early work in the natural sciences, following the philosophical as-
sumptions of the Greeks, was dualistic in its premises and interpreta-
tions; the universe was composed of matter and energy. In the pattern
of traditional philosophy, furthermore, scientific observations were
guided by a concept of structuralism; knowledge and understanding
were sought through analysis of natural phenomena into structures and
substructures. Only in the beginning of the twentieth century were the
researches of such men as Planck and Rutherford, and the logic of
Einstein's equations sufficient to cast doubt on dualism and atomism as
explanatory physical concepts.25 Naturally, the later emerging sciences
of physiology and psychology followed the pattern of their predecessors
and at first viewed human behavior as resulting from the action of
associated, but independent, structures.

Though in comparison to astronomy and physics the biological and
medical sciences were late comers, they still ran far ahead of the studies

394 RHETOKIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

of mental life. Furthermore, while psychology confined its study to the
mind, and to mental phenomena, the medical and biological sciences
ranged the realm of man's structures and processes, including his ills.

It is quite understandable, therefore, why the early work and pub-
lished observations, particularly in speech, were largely the province
of the physician or physiologist, with the explanations of human de-
viations and deficiencies being sought anatomically and physiologically
in terms of the structure or functioning of specific organs.

Scientific literature of the late nineteenth century, however, con-
tained a growing number of references to the "mind" and "mental
factors." Not only were anatomists and physiologists increasingly ex-
ploring supposedly mental activity, but psychology enlarged its scien-
tific observation, as it slowly but surely separated itself from philosophy
and speculative analysis. Sir Charles Bell demonstrated the principle
of differentiation of sensory and motor nerves in 1811; the middle of
the century brought both the discovery of the two-point limen by
Weber, and Fechner's psychophysical measurements. In 1869 Galton's
Hereditary Genius 26 gave impetus to the study of individual differences
with Wundt's laboratory (1879) and the study by Cattell and Farrand
supplying additional and constructive emphasis.

Thus, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, through their
greater attention to objective observations of individual differences,
psychologists made a growing contribution to speech and hearing. With
few exceptions,27 however, these early psychologists followed the ana-
lytic techniques of physiology and natural science and analyzed the
mind into a series of discrete substructures. "Structuralism," for ex-
ample, as espoused by Wundt and Titchener 2S considered the three
basic structures of the mind to be sensations, images, and affections—an
analysis profoundly influential on both general and special education.

With the opening of the twentieth century, however, the accumulat-
ing results of experimental studies and the rapidly changing premises
in philosophy, logic, and mathematics, combined to establish a theoret-
ical view of the universe as a total process. Appearing first in the
natural sciences, this concept spread rapidly to biology and, shortly
after, to psychology and education. "Field Theory/' the hypothesis that
the behavior of parts is determined by the whole of which they are a
part, was enunciated in the natural sciences, and became increasingly
influential in biology and psychology.29 Behaviorism, while stated
more as method than as systematic psychology, was monistic in theory,
though it followed the atomistic tradition in its observational methods.30
Gestalt psychology, first announced in Germany in 1912,31 was both
monistic and organismic. The rapid fusion of its configurational hy-

EDUCATION IN SPEECH AND HEARING 395

potheses with current experimental data in the United States provided
a psychological basis for a total educational approach.

Meanwhile, the field of education itself had not been static in these
years. Jean Jacques Rousseau, called the father of modern education,
insisted that children should be educated according to nature, which
included the child's nature as well as the nature of things.32 Pestalozzi
followed the concept that education should be child-centered in his
school at Stanz ( 1798 ) and in his views on education in How Gertrude
Teaches Her Children ( 1801 ) . Through the combined efforts of phi-
losophers, psychologists and educators, the concept of a total approach
to education became a reality in the early days of the twentieth century.

Developments In the United States

The framework for modern special education was relatively far
along in its formative stages when the new nation was founded in the
Western world. European interest in speech and hearing had brought
a usable, though far from complete body, of knowledge; the new
government itself was an evidence of an appropriate social conscious-
ness. Though the later organismic view of education was still in the
future, the pioneers held staunch beliefs concerning the need and value
of publicly supported education for all.

Initial Delay

Educational work in speech and hearing, however, received little
attention in the early days of building a nation in the wilderness. Such
interest in speech training as did exist seemed confined to the rhe-
toricians and elocutionists, concerned with teaching their arts to the
few college students.33 Little educational effort, or publication, can be
discovered on this side of the Atlantic prior to the nineteenth century.

Although the printing and publication of books began early in the
Colonies,34 Francis Green, of Boston, was the first American author to
write concerning the deaf, but he published in England.35 Dr. William
Thornton, first head of the United States Patent Office and architect
of the first Capitol at Washington, was the first to publish in America.36
Early American references to stuttering appeared only as sections in
larger medical or other scientific works, or as part of texts in Elocution.37

Since the work in this country began with the nineteenth century, it
was extremely sensitive to the changes occurring elsewhere. There were
wide variations in both theory and practice, with the beginning and
close of the century representing different eras. The early years of the

396 BHETOBIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

century may be labeled "physiological/' with "psychological and edu-
cational" applying with increasing accuracy after 1850.

Early Nineteenth Century

Educational efforts in hearing and speech began practically simul-
taneously at the opening of the century yet the nature of the work
done and the personnel involved differed markedly. Education of the
deaf claimed more attention and expanded more rapidly; it passed
more quickly through the era of temporary and isolated ventures to
the establishment of permanent institutions on solid educational foun-
dations. Furthermore, public responsibility for the education of the
deaf was assumed a good half century before the public schools of-
fered aid to the speech defective. Ministers and educators assumed a
large role in the early efforts toward education of the deaf; speech
remained with the physician and the elocutionist.

In contrast to the earlier but slower developments elsewhere in the
world, the United States moved with amazing rapidity from early and
temporary efforts to a solid program of permanent institutions and
established public support The first spur to education of the deaf
apparently came from Francis Green of Boston with the publication of
a census taken with the assistance of some of the ministers of the
community. This 1803 survey found seventy-five deaf in Massachusetts,
and estimated five hundred for the entire country. A few years later,
1810, a real though temporary beginning of education of the deaf
occurred when the Reverend John Stanford found several deaf chil-
dren in the alms house of New York and tried to teach them, While
his work lasted but a short time, it paved the way for the establishment
of a permanent school in 1817.38 Other starts, beginning in 1812, were
made by John Braidwood, of the English family controlling a secret
oral method. His series of transient efforts in Baltimore, Goochland,
and Chesterfield counties in Virginia, in New York, and again in Vir-
ginia, however, all ended in failure.39

The first permanent free school for the deaf40 in the United States
began at Hartford, Connecticut, in 1817. On the basis of a survey made
with the assistance of a group of New England clergymen (1811-1812),
Dr. Cogswell of Hartford estimated that there were 400 deaf in New
England and 4000 in the United States. Led by Dr. Cogswell, friends
of his daughter, Alice, organized and sent Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet,41
a graduate of Yale and of Andover Theological Seminary, to Europe to
prepare himself as a teacher of the deaf. Originally, his plan had been
to study the oral method in London, but the Braidwood family, then
IB control, were reluctant to disclose their secrets.42 Meeting this ob-

EDUCATION IN SPEECH AND HEARING 397

stacle in both England and Scotland, Gallaudet accepted the invitation
of Abbe de FEpee at Paris and was instructed in the manual method.

Accompanied by Laurent Clerc, a teacher in the Royal Institution
for the Deaf and Dumb in Paris, as an assistant, Gallaudet returned in
August, 1816. Shortly before his return, the General Assembly of Con-
necticut passed an act of incorporation in accordance with the petition
of sixty-three citizens of Hartford who were "formed into, constituted,
and made a body politic and corporate by the name of the Connecticut
Asylum for the Education and Instruction of Deaf and Dumb Persons/'
Under this charter and name, the school was opened April 15, 1817,
using the sign language, manual alphabet, and writing.

This school, later known as the American Asylum, and now as the
American School for the Deaf, was the forerunner, if not the exact
model, for the great modern system of state supported schools. Though
it had been initiated by private financial support, the Connecticut legis-
lature, in October of 1817, appropriated five thousand dollars. Addi-
tional contributions came from other cities; in 1819, the United States
government gave a substantial grant of land; and additional support
in the New England states, Georgia, and South Carolina provided
for the education of deaf pupils from a wider area.43

Similar schools followed in quick succession. The New York Insti-
tution for the Deaf and Dumb was incorporated April 15, 1817 44 and
opened in October of the next year; The Pennsylvania Institution for
the Deaf and Dumb opened in Philadelphia, in the fall of 1820. In
1823, Kentucky marked a final step in public education. Not only was
it the fourth state and the first away from the seaboard to establish free
education for the deaf, but more significant to an historical account,
the initial action was taken directly by the legislature, and the school
was the property of the state from its inception. Thus, education for
all, as a public responsibility, was established in the first quarter cen-
tury. With these beginnings, new schools were opened at increasingly
frequent intervals. Sixteen public schools, in as many states, had been
established by 1854; by 1893 the total had reached sixty-one.45

Interesting to the historian is the fact that the education of the deaf
in the first half of the nineteenth century depended almost entirely on
the sign language and written instruction. Though the oral method was
well known and frequently used in Europe at this time and had its
staunch advocates in this country, the first school using the oral
method was not started until 1866.46 The slight appeal of the oral
method usually is explained by the training of Gallaudet, and the con-
tinued reluctance of the Braidwoods to disclose their version of the oral
method. Since other teachers than the Braidwoods were using oral
methods, however, this may be an overly narrow view, for choice of

398 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

method is influenced by dominant psychological and educational
theories and the prevailing concept of the nature of speech.47 In any
event, changes in educational premises, coming originally from Europe,
and a dawning view of speech as a part of the learning process co-
incided very closely with the increased use of the oral and combined
methods in the second half of the century.

Of all the deviations of speech, stuttering received the major em-
phasis in the publications of the first half of the nineteenth century.48
The various suggested causes and remedies for stuttering therefore
most clearly indicate the sway of physiological concepts. It is only in
the light of this physiological period, moreover, with its emphasis on
the peripheral speech mechanism, that the modern student can under-
stand the reported procedures and remedies, since some of them seem
now to have a bizarre and even impossible flavor.49

The remedial procedures for stuttering in the first half of the nine-
teenth century fall rather clearly into three distinct approaches: drills,
surgery, and the use of mechanical devices. With major blame placed
on the peripheral organs of speech, varied and ingenious special exer-
cises were designed for the tongue and lips, and for the breathing
muscles. Stutterers were instructed and drilled in deep and regular
breathing, repetition of the vowels, speaking, singing, arm swinging,
and rhythmical movements of head, arms, or feet.

An early example of this drill procedure is given by the account of
the "American Method," known also as "Mrs. Leigh's Method" and "The
Leigh- Yates Method." Accounts vary concerning the origin and precise
procedure of this method; since it was secret, the details must be gath-
ered from indirect evidence, the proprietors making no statements.
Warren gives the generally accepted information that the method was
originated by a Dr. Yates, who opened the school in the name of his
daughter's tutor, Mrs. Leigh, to avoid "the reproach of empiricism." 50

Although there is some uncertainty concerning the exact methods
employed,51 there is none concerning the popularity and influence of
the school and its methods. It was endorsed by prominent physicians
and professors, stutterers flocked to its doors, and teachers came to
study and to carry the methods back to their pupils. In 1828 this
"American Method" was the subject of a report by Megendie to the
French Academy, a report, however, which was expressed in something
less than laudatory terms.52

In spite of many imitations, large numbers of students, and glowing
testimonials, the original school and the "American Method" disap-
peared from the scene in time for Mr. Warren to report both the nature
of the method and its demise in his article of 1837.

The physiological view of stuttering helps to explain the wave of

EDUCATION IN SPEECH AND HEAKING 399

attempts to cure stuttering through surgical intervention.53 The early
part of the nineteenth century brought a rapid development of surgery,
with increasing attempts to cure both malfunctioning and deformities
of trunk and limbs by this means. Although neither ether nor chloro-
form was yet in use, Dieffenbach, professor in the medical school at the
University of Berlin, devised three operations on the tongue for stut-
tering, and performed the first one in January, 1841. His reasoning,
though incomprehensible to the twentieth century, was not without its
logic in the nineteenth. The numerous and optimistically-toned articles
describing his work in France and England, as well as in Germany,
brought large numbers of stutterers seeking this relief, and the sur-
geons responded to the demands.54

In the United States a few surgeons used variations of the original
techniques. Dr. Alfred C. Post, of New York, apparently was the first,
performing an operation on May 21, 1841. Dr. Schmidt, likewise of
New York, reported surgery late in June, Before many operations were
attempted, however, vigorous protest from members of the medical
profession, and increasing evidence of fatalities brought this chapter
in remedial attempts to a close as quickly as it had begun. The close of
the year of its origin, 1841, brought the end of the surgical period.

Late in a half century that was still concerned mainly with the pe-
ripheral organs of speech, various appliances and mechanical aids were
tried, in attempts to control the muscles and structures involved. Mrs.
Leigh had recommended linen under the tongue; the pebbles of De-
mosthenes were not forgotten. The cork between the teeth, recom-
mended by Charles Kingsley in 1859 was adopted by some American
teachers. The most popular appliances, however, were three invented
by Robert Bates of Philadelphia. These were patented, widely adver-
tised, and sold for thirty-five dollars each.55 Only from the view of the
physiological concept of stuttering held at this time is it possible for
the modern student to understand the endorsement of these appliances
given by the "Committee on Science and Art" of Franklin Institute in
1854 and the award of the Scott Legacy Premium for these ingenious
and useful inventions." 56

Later Nineteenth Century

The early part of the nineteenth century had been one of growing
but somewhat scattered efforts. The scientific spirit of controlled ob-
servation and criticism of both methods and results was only in the
beginning stages. The second half of the century, however, brought
increasing research, accumulation of knowledge, and further changes
in educational and social concepts. Slowly, but clearly, this half century

400 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

revealed the beginnings of the modern educational approach in speech
and hearing. The young and vigorous science of psychology contributed
more directly to educational theories; educators, more numerous and
with increased professional consciousness, extended the possibilities
and responsibilities of public education. New professional organizations
fostered a sense of professional solidarity and power, while the ensuing
conventions and journals increased the range and scope of educational
planning. Simultaneously, larger school enrollments emphasized the re-
sponsibility of the public schools to provide comprehensive and real-
istic programs for all children, normal and handicapped alike.

Psychology, through most of its earlier history, had been concerned
with a speculative search for universal principles, generalizations that
would explain all activity of the human mind.57 In the later years of
this half century, however, the earlier search for ways in which all
humans are alike yielded to the new awareness of individual differ-
ences and the need for more comprehensive educational programs
became quite apparent.58 The hallowed "Three RV were not enough.
The task of imparting information to the young, previously established
according to "mental laws/* became less simple. One child was not the
duplicate of another.

These psychological changes, however, were only part of the develop-
ments occurring in this era. The concepts of Rousseau and Pestalozzi,
Froebefs pioneer work with younger children,59 and Horace Mann's 60
brilliant and energetic interest in public education all combined to out-
line and establish a new concept of the nature and responsibility of
public education. Stimulated and validated by the philosophy of John
Dewey,61 and demonstrated in the "Progressive Schools,5' educational
theory and practice moved to its modern concern not only for all chil-
dren, but for each child as a whole.

In his occupation with formative theory and knowledge, however,
the historian must not lose sight of the obvious and quite practical
influence of increased school attendance, a growth particularly signif-
icant because it reflected a higher percentage of attendance on the
part of children of school age in addition to a mere increase in the
total population.62 While numerous causes have been suggested for
enlarged school attendance,63 the greatest influence on the handicapped
probably was exerted by the increasing agitation against child labor 64
and, particularly, the adoption of compulsory school attendance laws.
The early compulsory education laws of this country had not required
attendance, and the first of such legislation, established by Massa-
chusetts in 1852, remained practically unenforced for a number of
years. Actually it was only in the last three decades of this nineteenth
century that compulsory school attendance, as known in Protestant

EDUCATION IN SPEECH AND HEARING 401

Continental Europe in the sixteenth century, really received much
legislative attention. 6 5

Obviously this increase in the school population brought a larger
number of handicapped children into the public school system. These
children, who in earlier years soon would have dropped out of school
or never even appeared, forced a new awareness of the inadequacy of
the traditional public school program to provide "equal educational
opportunities for all."

The growth of professional organizations and learned societies in the
late decades of the century likewise indicates a changing era. Members
of these organizations not only met in conventions to discuss their mu-
tual problems and to plan appropriate programs of action, but they
published journals spreading the results of research and discussion,
and pleas for action, to an ever longer roster of readers. A complete
catalog of these organizations and journals would be neither interesting
nor significant but a brief sample will make apparent the widening
circle of shared knowledge and experience. Influential, with greater or
less directness, on education in hearing and speech were the American
Medical Association, founded in 1847, the National Educational Asso-
ciation (1857),66 American Psychological Association (1892), and the
Parent Teacher Association (1897),67 More immediately concerned
with the education of the deaf were the Convention of American In-
structors of the Deaf (1850), Conference of Executives of American
Schools for the Deaf (1868), the Volta Bureau (1887), the American
Association to Promote the Teaching of Speech (1890),68 and the
Association to Promote Auricular Training of the Deaf (1894). Not all
the organizations, however, were formed by the teachers and adminis-
trators. The membership of the National Association of the Deaf,
founded in 1880, included deaf persons, especially those with an edu-
cation. The National Fraternal Society of the Deaf ( 1901) is a fraternal
and actuarial society, yet not lacking in its social aspects. Speech, how-
ever, as a separate area was represented in this period only by the
Public Readers and Teachers of Elocution (1892), renamed a year
later the National Association of Elocutionists.69

The work and influence of these organizations was extended through
a growing list of publications represented by such journals as the
American Journal of Psychology (1887), Psychological Review (1894),
Pedagogical Seminary (1891), Journal of Proceedings and Addresses,
National Education Association (1857), Educational Gazette (1869),
and Education (1880). Special professional emphases came through
the American Annals of the Deaf (1847), The Volta Review (1899),
The Voice (1879),70 Emerson College Magazine (1892), and the Pro-
ceedings of the National Speech Arts Association (1892).71 This period

402 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

likewise brought indexes, clear indications of growing scope and com-
plexity in any area of research: Index Medicus (1879), Psychological
Index (1895).72

No account of the educational developments in speech and hearing
of this period would be complete without specific mention of Dr.
Alexander Graham Bell, third in a family of distinguished scientists
and pioneer educators. Alexander Bell, the grandfather, was a recog-
nized early nineteenth century authority on diction and speech defects.
His book, Stammering and Other Impediments of Speech, published in
London in 1836, protested the cruelty of surgical operations and the
quackery of those who have not studied the phenomena of speech, as
well as outlining usable pedagogical methods. Alexander Melville Bell,
the son, listed in the mid-forties in the City Directory of Edinburgh as
a "Professor of Elocution and the Art of Speech," likewise achieved
renown as an author 73 and teacher, and particularly for his system of
alphabetics known as visible speech. When he was unable to accept
an invitation to give a course to the teachers of the Boston School for
Deaf -Mutes he sent his son, who had moved to Brantford, Canada, in
1870, for reasons of health. Subsequently, and fortunately for this
country, Alexander Graham Bell decided to remain in Boston, and in
1872 opened a school of vocal physiology. In 1873 he joined the faculty
of Boston University, and in 1875 offered what probably was the first
university class for the instruction of teachers of speech correction and
of speech for the deaf.74 In spite of the demands on his time made by
his research and his inventions 75 he retained his interest in speech,
particularly for the deaf. Active as a teacher and a strong advocate of
the oral method in the education of the deaf, in 1887 he established
the Volta Bureau "for the increase and diffusion of knowledge relating
to the deaf/' with an original endowment of $100,000 76 obtained
through successful experiments at the "Volta Laboratory" 77 and the
sale of basic patents on the phonograph-gramaphone. In 1908 he pre-
sented this treasure of educational scholarship, including its library, its
research material, and the valuable case histories of many thousands of
deaf persons, to the American Association to Promote the Teaching of
Speech to the Deaf, which he had founded and endowed. Continuing
his leadership and his staunch advocacy of the oral methods in all
schools, he served as President of the Clarke School for the Deaf for
the five years preceding his death, in 1922.

The life and work of this scientist, educator, and humanitarian fos-
tered, if not actually originated, many of the concepts governing more
recent educational procedures. As much as that of any other man, his
work marked the beginning of a new era. Though dealing in terms of
the knowledge of the times, his vision and principles were of the

EDUCATION IN SPEECH AND HEAKING 403

twentieth century. The fact that every telephone in North America was
kept silent during his funeral was a tribute to only part of the contri-
bution he made to future generations.

The work for the deaf in this latter half of the century may be
described conveniently under four interrelated developments: first, an
increase in the number of residential schools for the deaf; second, the
extension of this instruction to public day schools; third, the growing
number of deaf children attending school; and fourth, wider use of
oral methods.

In the early years, the schools for the deaf in the United States had
been associated with charity or benevolence— concepts ever present,
and frequently dominant. Earlier accounts of these schools, and the
statutes establishing them, frequently used such words as "care," "aid,"
"maintenance," or "support." Whether these words were stressed be-
cause they represented the major aim of the pioneers, or because their
use facilitated the securing of donations is not our concern here.
Undoubtedly, many of the early teachers were considerably con-
cerned with deaf children who were found in conditions of poverty;
yet at the same time, the major aim in establishing these schools seems
to have been educational. In any event, by the middle of the century all
schools were stressing the educational nature and importance of their
work.

With mixed charitable and educational motives, groups of citizens
had founded schools with funds from private donations. This tended
to limit both the number of schools and the pupils who could be
accommodated. Even when the state came to the aid of the schools,
financial or geographical considerations limited attendance. Later, as
the states established schools at their own initiative and expense, at-
tendance still was limited either to a maximum number or to residents
of stated areas.

The final step in the development of schooling for the deaf came
with the complete acceptance of the educational motive and the
removal of all restrictions of finance or place of residence. Instruction
of the deaf, thus placed on the basis applying to all children, not only
represented a culmination of centuries of development of a sense of
public responsibility, but also encouraged the rapid growth in number
of schools, teachers, and pupils, that occurred in the second half of the
nineteenth century.

Of the forty-one public schools listed in the History of American
Schools for the Deaf™ twelve were established before 1850, and
twenty-nine of them between 1851 and 1893, The same publication
lists eighteen private and denominational schools which were opened
between 1869 and 1892. Volume III contains the names and addresses

404 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

of 798 instructors of the deaf, ample evidence of the extent of the work
that developed in this half century.

In the early part of this half century, Congress was asked to support
an extension to the college level of the work done at the Columbia
Institution for the Deaf and Dumb. While to a few the idea of higher
education of the deaf seemed strange, actual opposition was slight.
The appropriate legislation was enacted in 1864, and signed by Presi-
dent Lincoln, April 8, In June of the same year the National Deaf-Mute
College was publicly inaugurated under the presidency of Edward
Miner Gallaudet

This college, in 1893 renamed Gallaudet College in honor of the
pioneer teacher and its first president, extended the education of the
deaf to the higher academic levels during the same years that brought
accelerating growth of the work in the lower schools.79 Thus, in this
half century, the education of the deaf came to parallel general edu-
cation, and to assume a place probably accorded to it in no other
country.

Most of the earlier schools for the deaf had been residential insti-
tutions in which the pupils lived during the school year, the most likely
development from current educational views and thinly populated
areas. Beginning approximately in 1869, however, and with increasing
rapidity following 1890,80 day schools were established, which re-
sembled more closely the regular public schools and were an integral
part of state and civic educational programs. The conviction, accepted
more widely by educators, that institutional life for children should be
reduced to the lowest possible amount was fostered by clearer realiza-
tion of the total needs of the child. The day school fitted the new
demands in that it made possible the necessary special education of
the child but without depriving him of the benefits of home life. More-
over, since many of the day schools were located in special classrooms
in the general schools, it was easier for the deaf child to mingle with
normal-hearing children.

Earliest of the day schools to show stable existence was the Horace
Mann School of Boston, established in 1869 by the school board of that
city, and named in honor of their pioneer educator. Subsequent growth
was spasmodic, with many of the new schools existing for a short while
only. Some were launched a number of times. While the arguments
both for and against this type of school were many, and often vigorous,
on the whole the growth was commensurate with that in general edu-
cation and seemingly somewhat ahead of that in other special areas.
As nearly as can be determined, day schools showing some measure of
permanence, i.e., still in existence in 1920, had appeared in six states
( California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin )

EDUCATION IN SPEECH AND HEARING 405

prior to 1900; in five additional states by 1910, and in six others by
1920.81

Thus in a growing number of states they came to serve a part of the
need formerly met by the state schools alone. Commonly they were
aided by state legislation and financial support, but occasionally larger
cities established day schools as part of the local system and quite
independently of state support. The first full day school law was
enacted by Wisconsin in 1885, preceded by general legislation in Penn-
sylvania in 1876 to establish schools for "defective" pupils in school
districts of a certain size. Subsequent laws varied from permissive to
mandatory, with some of them including proposals for special taxes.
The majority of the states lacked any legislation in 1920.

In addition to the other changes, this period brought increasing
attention to, and agitation for, the use of oral methods in the instruc-
tion of the deaf. Although the oral method received some consideration
at the outset and the earliest proposals for schools intended the use of
the oral method,82 the leading schools used manual methods. Hence the
oral method was able to make but slight appeal. Apparently reports of
its successful use in Europe, particularly in Germany, made but little
impression in this country. In 1843, however, Horace Mann, the Massa-
chusetts educator, and Samuel Howe, Principal of the Perkins Institu-
tion for the Blind at Boston, visited Germany and returned to report
favorably on the results of the oral approach. These recommendations
aroused some enthusiasm, but representatives of other schools returned
with conflicting views.

The middle of the nineteenth century, however, brought increased
interest. The urgings of Mann and his colleagues, greater dissatisfaction
with an educational procedure that tended to leave undisturbed the
all too common label, "deaf and dumb," and increased knowledge of
educational techniques all were probably influential. In 1864 there was
an attempt to establish a small oral school in Massachusetts, but it was
not successful. In 1866, however, a school was established at Chelms-
ford, which shortly moved to Northampton as the Clarke School for
the Deaf; the first permanent oral school. Considerable, if indeed not
the greatest, impetus was supplied in 1869, through the establishment
of an oral day school by the School Board of Boston, the Horace Mann
School. In general, the day schools which subsequently opened in
other cities followed the pattern of this leader, with resulting exten-
sion of the oral method and an increase in the number of pupils so
educated. There seem to be some indications likewise that the increas-
ing dissatisfaction with the results of the manual methods operated, in
turn, to promote the development of these day schools.

Certain special influences, however, should not be overlooked.

406 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

A number of organizations were formed to encourage the wider use of
the oral method, the main one being the American Association for
Promoting the Teaching of Speech to the Deaf.83 The Volta Bureau,
closely associated with this organization, was markedly influential. In
1868, the Conference of Principals of American Schools for the Deaf
expressed approval of the oral method, though with definite qualifi-
cations, which were modified in 1886. Late in the century and con-
tinuing into the next, some of the states added legal force to the use
of the oral method, one type of legislation requiring it in all schools,
another in those that received state appropriations.

This second half century contains a clear record of some vigorous
contention between the advocates of the two methods. In some respects
this contention probably was unfortunate; in the longer view, however,
it may well be that disagreement afforded a vigorous stimulation for
expanding goals and conscientious work, and strong encouragement for
objective review and evaluation of the various methods and procedures.

In any event, the record is clear that this second half century brought
a remarkable increase in the number and calibre of the schools, a
widened view of the responsibilities and the possibilities of the edu-
cation of the deaf, with distinct improvement, educationally and eco-
nomically, in the place of the deaf as citizens of the commonwealth. In
this half century, the modern educational era found its true beginnings.

Speech correction, though subjected to the same influences, showed
much less change and growth than the education of the deaf. The
historian might surmise that this laggard development results, in part
at least, from an unawareness of the detriment to education imposed
by defective speech. Unlike the deaf child, the speech defective appears
able to receive the elements of his education as they are presented by
the teacher in the usual classroom. The less obvious fact, that his ability
to profit from instruction may be impaired by his handicap in expres-
sion, did not emerge in an educational scheme based on dualistic psy-
chology. With education aimed to train the "mind," stopped ears were
seen to block the gateway; but the need for unhampered response,
particularly in language, was not appreciated.

Under the dualistic tradition, speech 8* was considered mainly as a
means of expression, a performance. The interest in delivery, and the
separation of oral expression from rhetoric, apparently began in Eng-
land in the eighteenth century with the change in instruction in the
schools and colleges from Latin to English.85 This concern with deliv-
ery to which Mason gave the name "elocution" 86 spread to the United
States late in the eighteenth century and gained ground in the nine-
teenth. With emphasis mainly on the art of delivery, in both instruc-
tion and criticism,81' the increase in speech activities,88 particularly on

EDUCATION IN SPEECH AND HEARING 407

the college level, tended to emphasize speech as an end product. Speech
was a skill in addition to the educative process, but not part o£ it or of
use in it.

This situation may help to explain a rather startling contrast between
the rapid growth in the number of people professionally identified as
"instructors of the deaf/' and the enlarging number of organizations
with the lack of such professional group in the field of speech. In the
second half century instruction in the spoken word was given largely
by public performers, the proprietors of private schools, and the itin-
erant "professor" of public speaking, many of whom were concerned
with individual efforts and had little sense of affiliation with general
education. The first professional organization, the Public Readers and
Teachers of Elocution ( a year later renamed the National Association
of Elocutionists) organized in 1892, seems to have represented the
professional rather than the educational view of speech.89

Since the educational loss inflicted by disorders of speech was not yet
known, speech correction in this half century still was largely con-
fined to stuttering and its dramatic symptoms. There were, however,
distinct changes in the view of stuttering presented in the literature.
Descriptions were concerned less with the peripheral organs of speech
and more with physiological processes and remedial measures were
suggested more frequently.90 In this "physiological" period breathing
exercises, loud talking, rhythmical utterance, and general hygiene were
recommended more frequently, while a generally increased interest in
the articulatory aspects pointed the way to the "drill methods" which
were to continue in later years. Furthermore, elocutionists and edu-
cators were doing an increasing amount of the remedial work and the
concept of stuttering as solely a medical problem yielded to the hope
for re-education of the unfortunate speech habits.91 Alexander Graham
Bell's School of Vocal Physiology, in Boston, and the American Vocal
Institute and the Bryant School for Stammerers in New York were
typical of the growing attempts to retrain a mal-functioning mechanism
through educational techniques.

Amid the diversity of approach, conflict of opinion, and controversy
concerning the medical or educational nature of the problem, the most
significant event of this half century seems to have been the increasing
study of the stuttering person, using psychological methods and knowl-
edge in an attempt to understand the individual as a whole. The obser-
vations of individual differences in the nature and manifestations of
stuttering were a true harbinger of the scientific approach which char-
acterized the twentieth century. In any event, at the end of the nine-
teenth century, the anatomical and physiological eras were drawing to
a close, and the psychological period was well into its beginnings.

408 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

The Twentieth Century

The opening years of the new millennium were a blend of the old and
the new. For this reason, some writers have seen the pre-war years as
part of the preceding century. Yet there were real differences in con-
cepts and events. There was a marked sense of quickening tempo with
new facts and theories arriving in quick succession, and significant
events occurring with increasing rapidity. These years brought, like-
wise, expanding research and the application of new mechanical and
electrical instruments made observation more precise.

The greatest change, however, occurred in educational programs. As
individual differences and the principles of learning became increas-
ingly clear, both hearing and speech embraced a more comprehensive
educational view.

Changes in the field of speech seem much more marked than those in
hearing. With comparative suddenness, increased discussion and pub-
lication not only suggested new theories and procedures for stuttering,
but also, and probably even more significantly, woke the schools to
the real educational and social handicaps imposed by the seemingly
minor and hitherto neglected disorders of voice and articulation. In
brief, while the work in hearing was extended and modified, speech
correction as an educational program came into being.

One of the marked additions to the work in hearing concerned
children and adults with less than a total loss of hearing. Although
some day schools had accepted hard-of -hearing children in the earlier
years, provision for such separate classes was first made in Rochester,
New York, in 1909. Since that date, educational facilities for hard-of-
hearmg children have been increased, either in special schools or in
specialized classes within the regular public schools, with particular
attention to lip reading and to the improvement of residual hearing
and conversation.

Perhaps inspired by the broadened work for children, the early years
of the twentieth century witnessed an increased demand by hard-of-
hearing adults for instruction in lip reading. Apparently, however, the
only instructors who attempted to use lip reading at all were some of
the teachers of deaf children who seemed to have no settled teaching
methods.92 There is even some question whether anyone in these days
really accepted lip reading as a necessity or believed it could be taught.
In spite of his work as a teacher of speech and his interest in "visible
speech/' Alexander Graham Bell's first interest in lip reading seems to
have come after the children at the Horace Mann School for the Deaf
showed him they could understand his normal conversation.98

EDUCATION IN SPEECH AND HEARING 409

Shortly before 1900, Martha E. Bruhn, a Boston language teacher,
threatened with the loss of her own hearing, studied with Julius Muller-
Walle of Germany who had devised a system of teaching lip reading to
adults. On her return, she began to teach lip reading to adults in 1902.
Apparently just slightly earlier, Lillie Warren had opened a similar
school in New York City to which Edward B. Nitchie came as a pupil,
and remained for a short time as assistant. In 1903 this pioneer left the
Warren School to open his own, using his individual method of teach-
ing.94 Teachers trained at these and other schools began similar work
in other cities, thus extending even more widely this new educational
opportunity.95 Later, in 1913, public evening classes in lip reading for
adults were started in the schools of Brooklyn and New York. Two years
later, the same type of instruction was offered for children in special
public-school classes in Lynn, Massachusetts, and Rochester, New
York.96 Thus the early years of this century not only brought modern
methods for the teaching of the previously neglected skill of lip read-
ing, but extended that teaching to a growing number of the newly
recognized group of hard of hearing, both children and adults.

The early years of this century saw likewise a growth of research and
the beginnings of co-operative work by men in several areas of study.
Seashore's audiometer in 1897 and his testing of Iowa City school chil-
dren a year later indicated greater accuracy and extended knowledge
to come in both clinical practice and research. This promise was ful-
filled abundantly by Bunch and Dean's pitch range audiometer in 1919,
and the later phonograph audiometer resulting from the collaboration
of Harvey Fletcher of the Bell Telephone Laboratories and Dr. Ed-
mund Prince Fowler, an outstanding otologist.

The opening years of the twentieth century brought rapid changes
in speech correction and considerable confusion in theories and pro-
cedures. The physiological concepts concerning stuttering were pre-
sented ably and clearly; so were the beliefs of those who tried to change
poor speech habits thorough drill. Scientific study of the stutterer as an
individual and observations of the results of therapy, however, sharply
decreased the confidence formerly placed in both the physiological and
elocutionary approaches to stuttering.

At this time, therefore, there was a real welcome for the introduction
of the other half of the dual nature of man, "the mind." With a direct
approach to the mind seeming possible, investigators held high hopes.97
Their optimism., however, was soon tempered by the modern scientific
demand for the modification of premises which fail to meet the test of
observation and verification.98 Nevertheless, conscientious students suc-
cessively presented and applied the tenets of the various systems and

410 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

"schools" of psychology. During these years, speech correction acquired
accumulations from Structuralism, Freudianism, and Behaviorism; So-
cial Psychology and Reflexology appeared in the post-war years with,
still later, configurational and holistic theories.

Structuralism, with its concept of the division of the mind into the
sub-structures of sensations, images, and affections, gave source and
credence to the imagery theories. With stuttering seen as a mental
phenomenon, it quite conceivably could be due to "visual center aes-
thenia," " or "transient auditory amnesia," 10° or, slightly later, "defec-
tive oratans" (i.e., defective kinaesthetic imagery).101 Students of
Freudian theory, the most optimistic of all, saw stuttering as rooted in
the subconscious mind. Anxiety neurosis,102 desire to express illicit feel-
ings and suppress them too,103 conflict between conscious control and
unconscious fluency 104-~such theories were first advanced to suggest
the significance of subconscious processes in stuttering.

Subsequently nearly all writers reflected some influence of the con-
cepts of "inhibition," "conflict," and "ego involvements"; 105 a few used
such concepts in building their theories.106

The influence of Behaviorism on stuttering theory was less distinct
than is commonly supposed since it was essentially a method, not a
school or a system of psychology. Its presentation of the monistic view,
however, and its emphasis on environmental factors in determining be-
havior paved the way for greater attention to environmental factors
and increased emphasis on conditioning and the possible r61e of lat-
erality.

The suggestions concerning stuttering, however, were not limited to
these few. Inheritance, 107 "asynergies" 10S and laterally 109 were pro-
posed as possible causes or contributing factors. Nor was this confusion
of theories lessened by later changes in both theory and description
announced by some of the early contributors to the psychological
view.110

In this interval of high hope and expanding knowledge, a number of
schools or institutes were opened, on a day or residence basis, for in-
tensive treatment of stuttering, using varying combinations of medical,
psychological and elocutionary theories and remedial methods.111 As
a reflection of the current optimism rather than of growing scientific
knowledge, there were even announcements of "new methods" for the
self cure of stuttering at home, or by correspondence.112

Psychologists and physicians, however, were not the only ones active
in the field of speech. Teachers of English, particularly in the public
schools, were giving more attention to oral English and to deviations
in articulation. The aim of their program, however, seemed limited to
"speech improvement/' or perhaps "betterment.'' An early article in the

EDUCATION IN SPEECH AND HEABING 411

English Journal, for example, used the word "speech" to mean good
choice of words, correct grammar, and avoidance of slang.113

While speech correction undoubtedly was encouraged by more at-
tention to oral English,114 actual remedial work apparently developed
from other sources. The contributions of psychologists, physicians, and
educators were supported and extended by a new type of teacher of
speech who was gaming familiarity with the acoustical, physiological,
and psychological facts of speech production. Influential, likewise, was
the simultaneous appearance of more articles by physicians and psy-
chologists in the Journal of the National Education Association,3-15
corrective programs in the public schools of several of the larger cities,
surveys of the incidence of speech disorders in the public schools, and
the establishment of university speech clinics.

Speech correction in the public schools apparently began with a
New York City class in 1908, the work being prompted by the in-
creased sense of responsibility for the handicapped which had led to
the earlier establishment of "ungraded classes." Preliminary discussion
of the appointment of a physician or educator to conduct the class was
ended with the selection of a teacher, Dr. John K Riegart, on the basis
of his broad scientific training in speech, including the medical and
pedagogical aspects.116 Though known as a "Speech Improvement
Class," 117 it included only children with speech disorders. Later the
work was extended and Dr. Frederic Martin was appointed director of
speech improvement in New York City in 1916, with the plan to develop
a city-wide speech correction program.118 Other cities soon followed
the example if not the exact pattern of New York to establish the pattern
of public school speech correction. Chicago in 1910,119 Boston in 1912,
with Detroit, San Francisco, Grand Rapids, and eight cities in Wiscon-
sin by 1916 were early on the list.

The early years of the twentieth century likewise contained a new
technique, the survey. Made by physicians, educators, and psychol-
ogists, surveys were a useful source of new data concerning the
incidence of speech disorders and also a means of publicizing the need
for more extensive speech correction work. Examples of the surveys
conducted could well begin with Thorpe's preliminary work in 1903
and that of Conradi in 1904, and would include Ferreri in 1911, list
McDonald, Blanton, Brown, and Wallin in 1916, and conclude with
what was by no means the last of these pioneer surveys, Stinchfield's
report on college students.120

Such surveys, combined with the growing attention to the need for
speech correction in the sessions of the National Education Associa-
tion 121 and expressed in the pages of its journals provided a sudden
dissemination of information and a strong motivation for additional

412 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

programs in the public-school system. It is possible, however, these
public-school programs, necessarily on an operational level, might have
become stagnant and routine without the extension of research and a
source of adequately trained teachers provided by the university speech
clinics appearing at this time.

Several of the early university speech clinics were established by
psychologists with the work in speech correction considered an exten-
sion of psychological programs of retraining and rehabilitation. Scrip-
ture,122 Twitmeyer,123 and Martin124 were among the pioneer psy-
chologists to include speech correction within a clinical environment.125
Blanton, a physician with considerable training and experience in
speech126 was appointed in 1914 by J. M. O'Neill, head of the Depart-
ment of Public Speaking at the University of Wisconsin, to establish a
speech clinic in this department In the same year, 1914, Dr. Max Gold-
stein established the Central Institute for the Deaf in St. Louis, which
made provision for hearing children with speech disorders in its second
year and opened a free clinic for speech defects in 1926.127

Before World War I, therefore, the pattern of the university speech
clinic as a teacher training and research center was established. Occa-
sionally at the outset, and increasingly later, university clinics in-
cluded education of the deaf and hard of hearing. Drawing on the
resources of medicine, psychology, and speech, they set a new total
educational program for the handicapped in speech and hearing.

There is real question concerning any immediate and direct effect
of the war years on the work in speech and hearing. The indirect and
derived influences, however, seem to have accelerated the educational
development which had begun in more peaceful times. The invention
and perfection of more sensitive and accurate instruments, wider areas
of research, and more quantitative knowledge of the number and
variety of speech and hearing disorders, and, perhaps even more, the
subsequent "boom times/7 forced the growth of educational programs
well started in earlier years.

In spite of expectations, few, if any, new remedial or teaching tech-
niques emerged as the result of the work with service personnel.128 In
hindsight, the program seems to have been too hastily organized and
sketchily administered to produce reliable clinical data. While dis-
appointing, this situation was completely understandable in view of the
limited knowledge concerning the probable case loads and an un-
avoidable lack of centralized professional guidance. In speech par-
ticularly, there was limited information concerning the frequency and
types of disorders in the adult male population plus a marked lack of
criteria for differential diagnosis. Carhart reported considerable varia-

EDUCATION IN SPEECH AND HEARING 413

tion in the diagnoses of both speech and hearing defects by the draft
boards. The national ratio per 1000 of defects of the ear and defects of
hearing was 7.69, but this ratio varied by states from 1.67 to 15.70. The
number of men classified as speech defectives was relatively very small,
with almost as many men reported as deaf mutes as were indicated to
have defective speech. Defective speech was reported in a ratio varying
from 2.3 to 0.02 per 1000 in different states. In the reports from the
local draft boards cleft palate and harelip comprised almost half the
total number of speech defects.129

Under the direction of the Surgeon General of the United States
Army, the Division of Physical Reconstruction established to furnish
rehabilitation service to disabled Army, Navy, and Marine personnel,
included a section of Defects of Hearing and Speech, with Colonel
C. W. Richardson as director. These facilities were housed in General
Hospital 11, the hospital for head surgery at Cape May, New Jersey.
The section was activated in July of 1918, and at the height of its serv-
ice, employed ten speech reading and three speech correction teachers.
Though the records are confusing, a minimum of 112 speech reading
and 54 speech cases received treatment at Cape May.130

Colonel Richardson reports favorably on the work in both hearing
and speech correction, though with percentages in one area and words
in the other. Success in the speech-hearing section is reported as:
Excellent, 53%; Good, 21%; Average, 14%; Fair, 6%; Poor, 6%. He further
reports that "all the work in connection with speech correction has been
a revelation to those who have not previously known its possibilities. It
stands out as one of the most remarkable results attained by the Med-
ical Corps in the history of the war." 131

Better quantitative estimates of the accomplishments in speech prob-
ably are impossible. The training period was relatively short and the
three speech correction aides dealt with disorders as various as aphasia,
laryngeal wounds, and stuttering. Further, their services were used to
teach English speech to soldiers with marked dialects and, interestingly
enough, to teach illiterates to read.132

^ In the twentieth century, audiology and speech correction emerged
as new professions to serve an educational concept only lately arrived.
This concept found its early roots and growth in biblical times and the
classic civilizations, was nourished by the basic teachings of the great
religions, and came to full growth only when man's social consciousness,
knowledge, and organismic concepts made possible a truly educational
approach, as a public responsibility, for the handicapped in speech and
hearing.

414 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION", AND SPEECH

Notes

1. Exodus iv. 10-17.

2. Judges xii. 6. God instructed Moses, "Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put
a stumbling block before the blind." Lev. xix. 14. Isaiah prophesied the curing of
the deaf, lame, and blind. Isaiah xxix. 18; xxxv. 4-6, xliii. 8.

3. S. O. L. Potter, Speech and Its Defects (Philadelphia, 1882), pp. 41-42.

4. St. Mark vii. 32-37.

5. The desire to include perspectives and interpretations within limited pages
seems to warrant the greater hazard to historical accuracy which is involved in pre-
senting some generalizations instead of listing the historical facts in detail.

6. Cf. C. Van Riper, Speech Correction (New York, 1947), pp. 1-13.

7. Ibid., p. 5.

8. Plato and Aristotle both mention the deaf. The latter apparently considered
them practically uneducable because of the absence of the sense of hearing.

9. Obviously these are broad generalizations only, with many variations.
Charity was well known long before the Christian era. The Greeks, for example, had
a system of charity (sixth century, B.C.) involving emigration, supply of corn at
reduced rates, and public relief. Rome provided public granaries in the third cen-
tury, B.C.

10. Harry Best, The Blind (New York, 1919), p. 254.

11. Harry Best, Deafness and the Deaf in the United States (New York, 1943),
pp. 374-375. For a brief description of the method, see abstract from Bede's
Ecclesiastical History, Bk. IV, ch. 2, in E. F. Boultbee, Help for the Deaf ( London,
1913), pp. 16-18.

12. Charles Stuart Loch, "Charity and Charities," Encyclopaedia Britannica,
llth ed., V, p. 876.

13. "Catholic charity is closely connected with the doctrine of poenitentia. The
effect of alms giving on the soul of the donor was theoretically more important
than its effect on the body of the recipient. This motive for charity did not cease
with the Reformation: men have continued to give of their substance to the poor
in recompense or contrition for the sin of their souls. It would hardly be possible to
write about pre-Reformation philanthropy without considering this subject of
motive. It is quite easy to do so for the post-Reformation period when, although this
motive was still operative, it was ceasing to be explicit." B. Kirkman Gray, A His-
tory of English Philanthropy (London, 1905), p. vii.

14. At least one writer calls attention to the early inception of "public" in the
sense of secular programs. "It becomes necessary to refute the general assertion
that the church was the only charitable agency during the Middle Ages, or that
charity was entirely administered by it. . . /*

"Charity . . . was not merely the concern of church or monastery." Lynn Thorn-
dike, "The Historical Background/* Intelligent Philanthropy, ed. Ellsworth Faris,
Ferris Laune, and Arthur J. Todd (Chicago, 1930), pp. 36-38.

15. With more obvious handicaps and apparent inability to learn or to perform
in conventional ways, the blind and deaf received earlier and greater attention than
those with speech difficulties.

16. An asylum originally for blinded Crusaders.

17. Founded by Valentin Haiiy under the name, Institution Nationale des
Jeunes Aveugles. Later the Societe Philanthropique took the school under its pa-
tronage. Best, The Blind, p. 257.

18. Incorporated by the Massachusetts legislature as the New England Asylum
for the Blind.

19. Accounts of earlier work consist of passing references; e.g., Rudolphus
Agricola, who lived from 1443 to 1485, tells of a deaf mute who learned to read
and write, but names neither the pupil nor his teacher. Girolamo Cordano, of
Milan (1501-1576), believed that the education of deaf mutes was possible though

EDUCATION IN SPEECH AND HEARING 415

difficult, and stated the principle on which it depends. Edward Allen Fay, ed. His-
tories of American Schools of the Deaf, 1817-1893 (Washington, D. C, 1893), I,
p. v.

20. Best, Deafness, pp. 375-376.

21. The differing methods of these schools started a controversy which deeply
affected the history of the teaching of the deaf in the United States as well as in
Europe.

22. Best, Deafness, pp. 374, 379-381.

23. J. McKeen Cattell and Livingston Farrand, "Physical and Mental Measure-
ments of the Students of Columbia University," Psychol. Rev., Ill (1896), 618-
648. ( This is the first in the long line of studies using college students as more or
less willing "guinea pigs.")

24. The first edition of Gray's Anatomy (1858) contained 750 pages and 353
illustrations; the 1948 edition, over 1400 pages and 1200 illustrations. Psychological
Index, Volume I, listed 1312 articles; Psychological Abstracts for 1952 lists over
7000.

25. The Quantum Theory, 1900; the "smashing of the atom," 1919; Special
Relativity, 1905; General Relativity, 1915.

26. Francis Galton, Hereditary Genius (London, 1869). Though Gallon's inter-
est seems to have grown out of Darwinism rather than psychology, his book greatly
influenced the latter field.

27. Notably, Harald Hoffding, Outline of Psychology (London, 1891).

28. Titchener coined the terms "structural" and "functional" to describe the
two divergent views of the mind. See "Structural and Functional Psychology,"
Philos. Rev., VIII (1899), 290-299.

29. "Field Theory" is illustrated in the physical sciences by Kepler's laws of
planetary motion, Galileo's law of freely falling bodies, and their integration by
Newton into the law of gravitation. For applications in psychology, see J. R. Kantor,
"Current Trends in Psychological Theory," Psychol Bull, XXXVIII (1941),
31-38; also Kantor, "The Nature of Psychology as a Natural Science," Acta Psychol,
IV (1938), 1-61.

30. John B. Watson, "Psychology as a Behaviorist Views It," Psychol Rev.,
XX (1913), 158-177.

31. Max Wertheimer, "Experimentelle Studien iiber das Sehen von Bewegun-
gen," Zeitechrift fiir Psychologie, LXI (1912), 161-265.

32. Jean Jacques Rousseau, Emile (Paris, 1762).

33. Rhetoric was included in the earliest educational programs. The first laws
of Harvard College (1643) made provision for rhetorical study and practice; rheto-
ric (of Latin) was required in the courses of the colleges founded before 1730. The
Spy Club for student speaking was founded at Harvard in 1719. English declama-
tion was introduced at Yale in 1751; Pennsylvania had a Professor of English and
Oratory as early as 1753; at Brown the laws made special provision for declama-
tion and oratory in 1774. See Warren A. Guthrie, "The Development of Rhetori-
cal Theory in America, 1635-1850," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern,
1940, pp. 28, 30, 76, 77-78.

34. Massachusetts in 1639 and Pennsylvania in 1685 were the leaders. The first
spelling book bears the date of 1643 and the New England Primer appeared some-
time between 1687 and 1690. R. Aiken, of Philadelphia, printed Burgh's Art of
Speaking in 1775. This is listed as "fourth edition," but no earlier U.S. publication
is discoverable. It was first published in London in 1761.

35. Vox Oculis Subjecta—A Dissertation on the Most Curious and Important
Art of Imparting Speech, and the Knowledge of Language, to the Naturally Deaf
(Consequently) Dumb, with a Particular Account of the Academy of Messers
Braidwood at Edinborough (by a Parent) (London, 1783). (Green's deaf son had
been a pupil at the Braidwood school. ) This publication was reprinted in 1897 by
the Boston Parents* Association for Deaf Children.

416 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

36. William Thornton, "Cadmus: A Treatise on the Elements of Written Lan-
guage/' with an appendix, "Essay on the Mode of Teaching the Deaf, or Surd, and
Consequently Dumb, to Speak," Transactions of the Am. Phdos Society, III ( 1793).

37. For a comprehensive account of the literature of stuttering for the first
half of the nineteenth century and earlier, see Pearl Bryant, "Speech Re-education
in the Nineteenth Century," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern, 1941.

38. First named the New York Institute for the Instruction of the Deaf and
Dumb and later the New York School for the Deaf. Best, Deafness, pp. 388-389,
and Fay, op. cit., I, x.

39. Whether the causes lay in the man or the circumstances, this is an unique
record of five locations in as many years. There is some reason to believe that his
presence in this country and his short-lived ventures contributed to the delay in
the use of oral methods.

40. In fact, the first for any of the so-called "defective groups/'

41. The present Gallaudet College in Washington, D.C., founded in 1864 as
the National Deaf-Mute College, was named for him in 1893.

42. As noted above, John Braidwood was in the United States at this time.
Fay states that the Braidwood family wished to establish a monopoly on the oral
method in. America as well as in Europe, and placed obstacles in Gallaudet's way.
(Op. cit., I, x.)

43. Job Williams, "The American Asylum," in Fay, op. cit., I, 9-14.

44. The same day its predecessor at Hartford opened its doors.

45. Fay, op. cit., I and III. The listing in these Histories of only eighteen
denominational and private schools in this period (1817-1893) indicates the pre-
ponderance of public education.

46. At Chelmsford, Mass,, in 1866. In 1867, with a liberal endowment, it
moved to Northampton and was incorporated as the Clarke School for the Deaf.
Gardiner Hubbard, first president of the Clarke School, reports the first attempt to
obtain a charter for an oral school (1864) was opposed "by the friends of the
American Asylum, on the ground that it was a visionary project and attempting
the impossible." See his "Address" in Fay, op. cit., II, 3-4.

47. The atomistic view tended to favor those methods of instruction using the
smallest and most specific units. Furthermore, speech, viewed as an end-product
separated from real education, could appear only as a desirable but not particularly
necessary "extra" in the acquisition of language and the development of the mind.

48. Apparently its dramatic symptoms and occasional "cures" gave stuttering
a place in the early medical and physiological literatures out of all proportion to
its incidence. The student can only surmise concerning the work done by elocu-
tionists, teachers, and the clergy, whose lay efforts were not reported in the rela-
tively few technical journals.

49. In the absence of controlled observations, few limitations were placed on
the nature of recommended methods or on the claims for their success.

50. J. Edward Warren, ''Remarks on Stammering," American Journal of Medi-
cal Science (1837), p. 84.

51. Article "Athenaeum" gives some indication. Quoted by Lucille D. School-
field, "The Development of Speech Correction in America in the Nineteenth Cen-
tury," QJS, XXIV (1938), 106-107.

52. Bryant, op. cit., p. 61.

53. For a discussion of the development and events of this short era see Gray
Burdin, "The Surgical Treatment of Stammering," Journal of Speech and Hearing
Disorders, V (1940), 43-64.

54. In Berlin, by the middle of April, surgeons had operated on sixty patients;
nearly two hundred were recorded in France within a year; on April 30, 1841,
Yearsley of England reported on three hundred operations in five months.

55. Schoolfield, op. cit., pp. 109-110.

56. Ibid., p. 110.

EDUCATION IN SPEECH AND HEARING 417

57. The last systematic development of this point of view was the doctrine of
"instincts," an explanatory concept which failed to meet the test of observations
reported by psychologists (Dunlap, 1918-1919, Kantor, 1920, and Kuo, 1921), and
economists and sociologists (Ogburn, 1923 and Bernard, 1924).

58. The role of experience and learning in determining the nature and per-
formance of the individual was given additional emphasis by the work of the
geneticists.

59. His first kindergarten, 1837.

60. Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education, his lectures and writ-
ings were strongly influential in the development of free public education in Amer-
ica. He established the first normal school in 1839, and in 1853 was elected the first
president of Antioch College. The modern nature of his beliefs was demonstrated
again when he made this college both coeducational and non-sectanan.

61. Professor of philosophy at the universities of Minnesota, Michigan, Chicago,
Peking, and Columbia, consultant in the reorganization of the Turkish national
school system. As Director of the School of Education at the University of Chicago
he was noted for his educational principles and for his reforms in the public schools
of Chicago.

62. Comparisons between the various years are apt to be confusing due to the
varying bases of classification of the population. During the years in which compari-
sons are possible, however, the percentage of the population between the ages of
five and seventeen enrolled in school rose steadily from 57% in 1870 to 68.6% in
1900, and 77.8% in 1920. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Statistical Abstract of the United States, 73rd ed. (Washington, 1952), p. 115.

63. Suggested reasons include a settled belief in the value of education, growth
in urban populations, and the increase in available time accruing from mechaniza-
tion and higher productivity in industry and agriculture. These reasons, however,
may have had more influence on secondary and college enrolhnents.

64. Though child labor was opposed with increasing vigor and effectiveness
from the days of the Civil War, this opposition was not reflected in permanent
legislation. The first national law, passed in 1916, was declared unconstitutional.
Legislation in 1918 proposing to tax the employers of child labor met the same
fate. In 1924, Congress asked for a Constitutional amendment, but the states
refused to ratify.

65. Arch O. Heck, "Compulsory Education," in Encyclopedia of Educational
Research, ed. Walter S. Monroe (New York, 1950), pp. 290-300.

66. Its Department of Special Education, including instructors of the deaf,
blind, and feebleminded, was organized in 1897.

67. First called the National Congress of Mothers.

68. This 1890 incorporation was preceded by earlier meetings beginning in
1874.

69. Somewhat later the name was again changed to the National Association
for the Advancement of the Speech Arts and, finally in 1906, to the National
Speech Arts Association, the title usually used to refer to the organization through-
out its life.

70. Edited by Edgar S. Werner and devoted to voice and speech with con-
siderable attention to stammering, it may well be considered the first speech cor-
rection journal. Its name was changed to Werner's Magazine in 1889; its last issue
appeared in 1892.

71. Numerous and shorter lived publications appeared during this period and
earlier. The American Annals of Education, e.g., began in 1826, merged with the
Education Weekly Reporter and Lyceum in 1830, but suspended publication in
1839.

72. The Proceedings of the N.E.A., 1857-1906 were indexed in 1907; the
Education Index began in 1930.

73. A New Elucidation of the Principles of Speech and Elocution (Edinburgh,
1849); Observations on Defects of Speech and Cure of Stammering and Principles

418 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

of Elocution (New York, 1853); Standard Elocutionist (Edinburgh, 1860), with
his brother, David C. Bell as co-author.

74. He continued his instruction here until the discontinuation of the College
of Oratory in 1880. SchooJfield, op. cit.} p. 113, describes his courses as "Culture of
the Speaking Voice," "Mechanism of Speech," "Visible Speech/' and "Methods of
Instructing Deaf Mutes in Articulation."

75. His inventions included not only the telephone (1876) but also the photo-
phone, an apparatus by which sound could be transmitted 250 yards on a beam of
light (never developed commercially), a graphophone which for the first time used
wax records, an induction balance, and a telephone probe for bullet wounds.

76. Later benefactions increased his endowment to approximately a quarter
million dollars.

77. This laboratory was so named because it had been established with the
50,000 francs of the Volta Prize. This award, established originally by Napoleon,
was awarded to Bell for his invention of the telephone.

It might be observed, not entirely facetiously, that had Bell been a physicist
instead of a teacher of speech he might never have invented the telephone; he
would have known it was impossible.

78. Fay, op. cit.

79. In the interests of completeness, mention should be made of the founding,
in 1893, in Philadelphia, of the Garrett Home School for Little Children Before
They Are of School Age, which admitted children at the age of two.

80. With perhaps ten starting prior to 1890, there were at least forty by the
end of the century, and nearly eighty by 1920. Best, Deafness, p. 454.

81. Additional support for these schools came from the advocates of the oral
method of instruction. Following the opening of the Horace Mann School with the
oral method, the extension of the day school system became a focus for the rising
protest against the non-oral methods which seemed to some to be fixed immovably
in the residential schools.

82. The New York Institution for the Instruction of the Deaf and Dumb, for
example, used it for some ten years before deciding to adopt what seemed then to
be more successful techniques.

83. Bell's endowment increased considerably the resources and influence of this
organization.

84. From the educational view of this study, the growth of speech correction
is seen within the framework of speech; i.e., the speech correctionist is a teacher
of speech with appropriate knowledge from medicine and psychology rather than
a physician or psychologist turned to an interest in speech training.

85. Guthrie, op. cit.9 pp. 232, 236.

86. John Mason, Essay on Elocution (London, 1748 ) .

87. Barnett Baskerville, "A Study of American Criticism of Public Address,
1850-1900," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern, 1948, pp. 311, 318.

88. In terms of percentages of students participating in the exercises, the height
of speech activities in American colleges and universities apparently occurred in the
years 1840-1860, with intercollegiate debate and oratory continuing the emphasis
on skill in speaking. Harold Monroe Jordan, "Rhetorical Education in American
Colleges and Universities, 1850-1915," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwest-
ern, 1952, p. 339.

89. There is some tendency among students of the history of speech education
to see the "mechanics school" as the cause of the decline of elocution. There is much
in this study to indicate more than the influence of one school, namely, the view of
speech structured by the psychological theory of the time as a form of expression,
a possible addition to, but not a part of, general learning and education.

90. Bryant, op. cit., p. 280, reports 1820 a» the date of the first appearance of
published remedial procedures.

91. The 1840*s had seen sharp and open conflicts between the physicians and
elocutionists, particularly in England. See Bryant, op. cit.) p. 23.

EDUCATION IN SPEECH AND HEARING 419

92. Harriet Montague, "Lip Reading— A Continuing Necessity/' Jl. Sp. Dis.,

VIII (1943), 259.

93. Though there is no discoverable record of his prior use of lip reading in his
teaching, his subsequent publications and activities clearly show his enthusiasm for
its values and possibilities. See Montague, op. cit., p. 260.

94. Warren H. Gardner, "History and Present Status of the Education of the
Hard of Hearing," Jl. Sp. Dis., VIII (1943), 228.

95. The arguments of the proponents of the oral method certainly were not
strengthened by the existence of different methods of teaching lip reading. Bruhn
and Nitchie used different systems; Cora Kinzie, of Philadelphia, announced a
third in 1917. The Jena method was introduced in 1926.

96. Gardner, op. cit., p. 228.

97. This "mental aspect" brought a wave of optimism concerning the cure for
stammering that seems not to have been equaled elsewhere in the field of speech,
though something of the same enthusiasm had prevailed in the work in hearing
three-quarters of a century earlier.

98. "Notes," QJSE, VI (1920), 87, relates that the 1920 meeting of the East-
em Public Speaking Conference was enlivened by a challenge issued by Erastus
Palmer, College of the City of New York, for anyone to cite a single instance of a
stammerer who had been corrected and had stayed corrected for more than six
months when not under the direct influence of his teacher. Apparently no one
accepted the challenge for four years later "Editorial" commented, "He is still
waiting. Is nobody going to take him up?" QJSE, X (1924), 271.

99. Walter B. Swift, "A Psychological Analysis of Stuttering/' Studies in Ab-
normal Psychology, Series VI (1916), 225-235; and "The Developmental Psy-
chology of Stuttering," Studies in Abnormal Psychology, Series VII (1917), 258-
264.

100. Charles S. Bluemel, Stammering and Cognate Defects of Speech (New
York, 1913).

101. Edwin B. Twitmeyer, unpublished lectures, 1930.

102. Edward W. Scripture, Stuttering and Lisping (New York, 1912).

103. Isadore H. Coriat, "Stammering as a Psychoneurosis," Jl. Abn. Psychol.,

IX (1914-1915), 417-429.

104. Ernest Tompkms, "Stammering and Its Extirpation," Pediatrics Sent., XXIII
(1916), 153-174.

105. V. "A Symposium on Stuttering (Stammering," ed. Robert West, Proc.
Am. Soc. for the Study of Disorders of Speech, I ( 1931 ) .

106. E.g., Blanton.

107. Frank A. Bryant, "Influence of Heredity in Stammering," Jl. of Heredity,
VIII (1917) ,47.

108. J. M. Fletcher, "An Experimental Study of Stuttering," Am. Jl. Psychol,
XXIX (1913), 201-255.

109. P. B. Ballard, "Sinistrality and Speech," Jl. Exp. Pediatrics, I (1911),
298-310.

110. Fletcher, Bluemel, Blanton, as well as others, progressively modified their
views.

111. Frank Augustus Bryant, How Stammering May "be Cured (New York,
1890), "Details of the system used by the principal of the Bryant School for Stam-
merers"; Some Speech Disorders and Their Treatment, Together with an Outline
of the Methods Used in the Bryant School for Stammerers (New York, 1913);
Questions and Answers About Stammering, Together with an Outline of the Meth-
ods Used in the New York School for Stammerers (New York, 1916); Frank A.
Reed, The Reed Method for the Cure of Stammering (Detroit, 1902); Samuel D.
Robbins, How to Stop Stammering ( Boston, 1921 ) : "A discussion of stammering,
its causes, effects, and correction, as embodied in the courses of private instruction
for the correction of stammering as offered by the Boston Stammerers' Institute."

420 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

112. George Andrew Lewis, Home Cure for Stammerers (Detroit, 1907); E. R.
Carswell, Cause and Cure of Stammering and All Other Speech Defects; A Man-
ual for School and Class Use and for Use in Correspondence Courses . . ( Chicago,
1912).

113. Mary A. G. Mitchell, "Wanted: A Higher Standard of Speech/' English
Journal, 1 (1912), 284-286.

114. The Speech Improvement Weeks observed in the secondary schools, be-
ginning late in 1915, grew out of a resolution to appoint a committee on speech
training presented by John M. Clapp and adopted by the National Council of
Teachers of English at its fourth annual meeting, November, 1914. "The NCTE/*
Eng. Jl, IV (1915), 47-49.

115. The NEA did not include speech cases in its department for exceptional
children established in 1907.

116. Dorothy Gertrude Kester, "The Development of Speech Correction in
Organizations and in Schools in the United States during the First Quarter of the
Twentieth Century/' unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern, 1950, pp. 192-
193.

117. So named because he wished " 'to select a characterization that would indi-
cate the class, not by its present status, but by its aim/ " Kester, p. 193.

118. Kester, p. 343.

119. Ten teachers in 1910, reduced to four for the next year, ". . . the assumption
being that the number of children needing special attention had been reduced suf-
ficiently to make ten teachers unnecessary but it has been found necessary to rein-
state the original numbers'" Ella Flagg Young, Annual Report of the Superintendent
of Schools, Chicago (1911). Quoted m Kester, p. 346.

120. Eliza J. Ellery Thorpe, "What Teachers Need to Know about Speech
Impediments," //. of N.E.A, XLII (1903), 1031-1036.

Edward Conradi, "Speech Defects and Intellectual Progress/* Jl. Ed. Psychol,
III (1912), 35-38; 87,400 children in six cities-Kansas City, Milwaukee, Cleve-
land, Louisville, Albany, and Springfield (Mass.) —showed defects.

Giulio Ferreri, "Defects of Speech among Primary Pupils/* Volta Review, XIII
(1911), 31-33, In New York City, *'a study of speech conditions in our public
schools shows that 200,000 of the 800,000 children are affected with stuttering and
speech defects/* D. J. McDonald, Addresses and Proceedings of the N. E. A.
(1916), p. 863.

Smiley Blanton, "A Survey of Speech Defects," Jl Ed. Psychol, VII (1916),
581-582, Madison, Wis.; Grace T. Brown, "Report of Corrective Speech Work
in the Rochester Public Schools/* Volta Review, XVIII (1916), 143-144; John
Edward Wallace Wallin, "A Census of Speech Defects," School and Society, III
(1916), 213-216, St. Louis; Sara M. Stinchfield, "Report on a Study of Speech
Problems at Mount Holyoke College/' American Speech, II, 148-152.

121. In 1900 a department of the deaf was represented by reports to the conven-
tion; stammering was added to the list of exceptional children in 1915.

122. Brill dates his interest in speech from his work with E. W. Scripture at the
Vanderbilt Clinic, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University in
1908. (A. A. Brill, "Speech Disturbances in Nervous and Mental Diseases/* QJSE,
IX (1923), 129.) Mrs. Scripture reports 4,000 cases treated during the year 1915-
1916. ("The Treatment of Speech Defects/* QJSE, VI (1920), 1-16.)

123. Edwin Burkett Twitmeyer, Instructor in Psychology, University of Pennsyl-
vania, 1914. Founded Clinic for Corrective Speech at University of Pennsylvania,
1914. (David J. Goodfriend, "News and Announcements/' Jl Sp. Dis., VIII (1943),
185.)

124. He was director of the Psychological Clinic for Defective Speech at City
College of the City of New York in 1915. "News and Notes/* Eng. ]1.3 V (1916),
141.

125. Credit for an earlier clinic should be given to Dr. G. Hudson Makeun, who
was elected Professor of Defects of Speech in the Polyclinic Hospital and College

EDUCATION IN SPEECH AND HEARING 421

for Graduates in Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania in 1897. Mary Summers
Steel, "How G. Hudson Makeun Treated Stammering," Proc. Am. Soc. for the
Study of the Dis. of Speech, I (1931), 20, For his own report, see "Two Hun-
dred Cases of Speech Defects at the Philadelphia Polychnic Hospital," Pa. Med.
]L, I (1897), 247-250.

The National Hospital for Speech Disorders established by Dr. James Sonnet
Green seems to have been a more highly specialized institution. James Sonnet
Green, "Releasing the Tongues of Men: How Speech Defects are Successfully
Cured at a Free Medical Clinic for their Treatment," Survey, XLI (1918),
65-67; and "A Departure in Hospitals: The National Hospital for Speech Dis-
orders," Jl Am. Med. Assn., LXXVII (1921), 1726-1728.

126. Blanton was a graduate of the Curry School, the Howard Theatre School in
Boston, and Vanderbilt University, and the founder of the Cornell Dramatic Club.
As an instructor at Cornell University his interest in speech led him to enroll in the
Cornell Medical College for further study of the disorders of speech. He held the
M. D. degree at the time of his appointment to Wisconsin. Kester, op. cit., p. 279.

127. Mildred A. McGinnis, "Max A. Goldstein, M.D., L.L.D.," Jl. Sp. Dis.,
VIII (1943), 208.

128. In the light of later events, this program may well be regarded as a "pilot
study."

129. Raymond Carhart, "Some Notes on Official Statistics of Speech Disorders
Encountered during World War I/' Jl Sp. Dis., VIII (1943), 98-99.

130. Ibid., p. 103.

131. C. W. Richardson, "Organization of Section of Defects of Hearing and
Speech, Division of Physical Reconstruction, Surgeon' General's Office," Annals
Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology, XXVIII (1919), 443.

132. Carhart, op. cit., p. 105.

Some Teachers and the Transition to
Twentieth-Century Speech Education

GILES WILKESON GRAY

The three decades from 1890 to 1920 were a period of transition in
the development of American speech education. The changes that were
taking place in these thirty years were perhaps more profound than in
any other similar period since the founding of the first colonial schools.
It was during these years that all the various aspects of oral communi-
cation were drawn together and integrated, under the common rubric of
speech, into the beginnings of our present profession. Rhetoric, which
for centuries had been thought of essentially as a matter of either style
or literary criticism,1 was by 1920 restored to its place as a substantial
body of principles governing both oral and written discourse.

Work on the drama, heretofore primarily an extracurricular activity,
was brought back into the classroom and given a prominent place in the
speech curriculum. Delivery was elevated from the mechanized systems
growing out of the philosophies of Diderot, Engel, Walker, Austin,
Rush, and Delsarte, and made an integral aspect of the study of speech.
Pronuntiatio again became the fifth canon of rhetoric.

In the oral reading of literature the mechanical, artificial, and exag-
gerated elocution of the nineteenth century was abandoned for the
more rational and restrained interpretation of the twentieth. During
these three decades, also, the first university clinic for both the correc-
tion of speech disorders and the training of competent therapists was
established.

Before the close of the period speech finally became recognized as a
dignified academic subject in itself. Courses had been offered for dec-
ades for the same credit as was given for other subjects; Chamberlain
reported 2 that in one school elocution had "held a recognized place in
the curriculum7* for seventy-eight years; in another, sixty years; in one,
"from the beginning"; in another, thirty years, and in still others,
twenty-six and forty years. That courses in rhetoric (speaking) had

422

TRANSITION TO 20TH CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 423

been offered for generations is so well known as to call for no comment.
By 1920 there were very few colleges or universities that were not
offering at least a few courses, many of them permitting undergraduate
majors, and a few even advanced work beyond the Bachelor of Arts
degree. On April 28, 1911, more than sixty secondary school teachers
of speech attended a conference at Swarthmore, called by Professor
Paul M. Pearson.3

The academic independence of the field of speech was particularly
marked by the establishment of autonomous departments throughout
the country. These had in fact existed since 1841 and probably earlier; 4
by 1893-1894 fifty-two schools replying to an inquiry reported separate
establishments. But such departments as the one at De Pauw in 1884,
at Earlham in 1887, Cornell University in 1889,5 Michigan and Chicago
in 1892, Ohio Wesleyan in 1894, gave an impetus to the further setting
up of similar ones elsewhere. Independent growth was, however, much
more than the result of academic recognition already achieved; it en-
gendered a still higher respect for the subject, with one result being tie
organization of graduate programs on a full scale at many of the major
universities of the country.6 It was only two years after the close of
the period under discussion that the first doctorate in speech was
granted.

Further evidence of academic independence may be observed in the
professional associations that were founded during these three decades.
Although there were scores of such organizations, mostly of local inter-
est, three at least of national scope deserve mention. The National Asso-
ciation of Elocutionists, the first of the three, was established in 1892
and disbanded in 1916. To this organization belonged many men and
women of high prominence in the field of speech. In 1910 the Public
Speaking Conference of the New England and the North Atlantic
States, commonly known as the Eastern Public Speaking Conference,
was founded. It is still strong as the Speech Association of the Eastern
States. The present Speech Association of America was organized in
1914 as the National Association of Academic Teachers of Public Speak-
ing. It drew from the Speech Arts Association (the name adopted by
the Elocutionists in 1905), according to Trueblood, "a lot of strength
in numbers and activity." 7 The second and third of these three organi-
zations particularly were founded on the basis of a profound belief in
the essential integrity of the field of speech as a dignified, academic
discipline in its own right.

Speaking contests had been known since the time of the Grecian
Olympics; but during the three decades from 1890 to 1920 they became
if possible more popular than ever. In December, 1911, Paul M. Pear-
son listed more than forty contest associations, with no suggestion that

424 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

the list was complete.8 Students from rival colleges had held debates
since 1881; 9 but it was eleven years (1892) before a formal inter-
collegiate debate was held, and nine more (1901) before the nature of
contest debating was clearly stated.10 By 1920 the ensuing controversy
had resulted in a full development of the principles involved; moreover,
the function of the judge in a debate was established, and the patterns
of present-day contest debating largely determined.

The changes that were taking place in American speech education
are revealed, finally, in the character of the textbooks that were written
and studied. Prior to 1890 there were no texts in interpretation as such;
there was, however, a surfeit of books on elocution, a quite different
thing. The writings on rhetoric were concerned with the written forms
of communication, with little or no attention to the spoken word.
Writers on rhetoric had forgotten that there were five canons originally,
and having omitted pronuntiatio from their theory, they omitted with it
the basis of any distinction between oral and written discourse. But by
the end of the three decades Baker had written his Principles of Argu-
mentation,11 Laycock and Scales their Argumentation and Debate,12
Foster his Argumentation and Debating13 Clark his Interpretation of
the Printed Page14 Phillips his Effective Speaking15 Winans his Public
Speaking?ie and Woolbert his Fundamentals of Speech17 Scripture at
Yale had published voluminously in the field of experimental pho-
netics,18 Browne and Behnke their series of twelve articles on "Voice,
Song, and Speech," 19 and Alexander Graham Bell his Mechanism of
Speech.20 .

'. In summary, then, the field of speech up to 1890 had been for the
most part disorganized, and in the hands of the professional elocution-
ists, who apparently had no concept of the educational values in the
subject. Rhetoric was essentially concerned with writing; and other
aspects of speech were either neglected or unknown entirely. By the
end of the three decades the professional organizations were taken
over by academic teachers, not of elocution, nor entirely of public
speaking, but of speech. The teaching of speech had moved from the
itinerant elocutionist and the private schools, interested in public per-
formance as a form of entertainment, to the high schools, the colleges,
md the universities, and had become a respected academic discipline
with a status equal to that of any other subject in the curriculum.

The thirty years were a period of transition and of integration. Will
it be said that by the end of the next thirty years a period of disintegra-
tion had set in?

TRANSITION TO 20TH CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 425

Even to mention all those who are known to have contributed, many
of them in no small measure, to the development that took place dur-
ing these three decades would obviously be impossible. But it is not
unreasonable to expect that any account of the changes from 1890 to
1920 must inevitably include the names of a few without whose contri-
butions those changes might not have taken place when they did, if
at all. The available evidence indicates that these few were among the
leaders, the pioneers in their respective fields, to whom their successors
owe a profound obligation. Since it was in the colleges and universities
that speech became more and more a genuinely educational discipline,
this discussion is perforce limited to those who were specifically in the
academic field.

In considering the rise of the academic teaching of speech during
these three decades, one inevitably thinks of the name of Thomas Clark-
son Trueblood of the University of Michigan. He was one of the few
to begin his teaching career before the opening of the period, and to
continue actively until well after its close.

Leaving Earlham College in 1878, he went to Jacksonville, Illinois,
where he studied for a time with S. S. Hamill. While there he met and
formed lifelong friendships with William Jennings Bryan and Robert
Irving Fulton, the latter his collaborator in the writing of all their books.
Later he went east and studied two summers with James E. Murdoch;
he also had work with the Amherst rhetorician, Genung, In 1889, after
some years with Fulton as itinerant teachers of elocution, and in their
own school of oratory at Kansas City, he received an appointment in
the Department of English at the University of Michigan. Three years
later he was made full professor and head of the new Department of
Elocution and Oratory, a position which he held until his retirement in
1926.

The first addition to his staff was not made until 1903-1904, when
Merlin Ludlow Wiley was appointed Assistant in Elocution. In 1906-
1907 R. D. T. Hollister was added. By the end of the year 1919-1920 he
had seen his department grow from a program of three courses each
semester to more than a dozen, and his staff included four persons be-
sides himself. Whereas he had started by teaching Elocution, The
Study of Great Orators, Shakespearean Readings, and Oral Discussions,
by 1920 Elocution had become "Principles of Expression"; he had
added courses in extempore speaking, advanced public speaking, de-
bating, story telling, interpretive reading, play production, the theory
of expression, speech correction, the oral reading of Tennyson and of
Browning, and oral English.

426 RHETOBIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

He was instrumental in the founding of the National Association of
Elocutionists in 1892, and was active in that organization until it dis-
banded in 1915. Although he himself taught elocution, he led the fight
in 1905 to change the name of the Association. It was not elocution that
was being repudiated, he pointed out: "most of us are ashamed of the
1st'." One is led to the conclusion that Trueblood, a teacher of elocution,
was not an elocutionist.

Two contributions seem to stand out above the general level of
speech training of his time. In the first place, elocution was to him a
quite different matter from reading, even public reading. He was both
a teacher of elocution and an effective public reader; but he was not
an elocutionist. He had grasped what few of his colleagues had been
able to comprehend: that a wide gap exists between elocution as
delivery of spoken discourse and elocution as an art form. To him elo-
cution was a matter of delivery— of the use of the voice and body most
effectively in speech, whether in reading or in original speaking. It was
elocution as John Mason had used the term in 1748; as Thomas Sheri-
dan had used it in 1762, and John Walker in 1781. It was the pronun-
tiatio of classical rhetoric, extended to include reading as well as speak-
ing. The elocutionist, on the other hand, was a professional reader,
usually in the exaggerated manner which grew out of the misinterpre-
tation of the philosophies of Austin, Rush, or Delsarte. Trueblood him-
self was an adherent, through the teaching of Murdoch, to the theories
of Rush, which, contrary to commonly held beliefs, were in his think-
ing anything but mechanical. At the same time, he was able to recog-
nize the possible contribution of Delsarte. In his own teaching he drew
from both: it took both, he said, to make a complete system of elo-
cution,21

Elocution, then, meant to him delivery, whether of speaking or read-
ing. The elocutionist as such was an anomaly— -a practitioner, in theory,
of the art of delivery: a sort of verbal Cheshire cat. Elocution was an
essential part of interpretation, but it was only a part. The elocutionists
themselves never saw that they were committing the error of taking
the part for the whole. In Trueblood's thinking, reading was one thing;
elocution was quite another. Both could be good, if neither was taken
for the other.

The distinction which he made between elocution and reading was
carried out in his departmental offerings. From 1892 to 1919 he offered
courses in elocution— "the delivery of short extracts from masterpieces
of orators." In his first year he also had a course in Shakespearean
Readings, distinct from the course, Elocution. In 1910-1911 Hollister
was teaching both Elocution and Interpretive Reading. The latter was
continued throughout the entire period under discussion, but Elocution

TRANSITION TO 20TH CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 427

became "Principles of Expression/' likewise a course in the principles
of delivery, the use of the body and voice in speech.

It was not the teaching of Trueblood and of those who taught the
same principles as he did, that brought elocution into disrepute. He
held on to the term much longer than most academic teachers, for the
simple reason that he felt that no term had yet been found that could
quite take its place, to refer to the ancient Fifth Canon of rhetoric.

Trueblood's second major contribution to the teaching of speech
consisted in his attitude toward academic standards. From the first days
of his teaching he was insisting on the highest attainable standards.
". . . it is the duty of everyone in the profession/' he was arguing as
early as 1892, "to urge upon his students to get as much of a liberal
education as is possible for them to acquire. . . . We cannot have the
standard too high." 22 "We must appreciate the necessity of education
and general culture to the members of our profession/' he said on
another occasion; "we must also raise requirements for admission and
strengthen our courses for graduation." 23 Never did he weaken in his
insistence on the maintenance of the highest standards for the pro-
fession.

Although he started out as a teacher of elocution, and never lost his
contact with it, he also developed strong interests in debating and
oratory. He was influential in founding the Northern Oratorical League
in 1890; his students proceeded to win seven of the first eight contests.
In 1896 he read a paper on "Qualifications of the Orator"; 24 three years
later he gave a paper on "The Educational Values of Sound Training in
Public Speaking"; 25 and in 1911 he was writing on "Coaching a De-
bate Team." 26

He was never able to understand why the seventeen founders of
the present Speech Association of America could not have worked
through the Speech Arts Association, in which he had been so active
since its founding in 1892. Winans probably expressed the difficulty
adequately when he said, ". . . it had little to offer to the teacher of
public speaking, since its chief interest was entertainment." 27 Despite
the fact that there were in the older organization many members, in-
cluding Trueblood, whose interests were academic, and who empha-
sized the educational rather than the entertainment aspects of speech,
Winans' evaluation was, on the whole, probably just.

Another famous teacher whose career more than spanned the thirty
years from 1890 to 1920 was George Pierce Baker of Harvard Uni-
versity, later of Yale. He had been graduated from Harvard in 1887,

428 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

and two years later received an appointment to the faculty in the
Department of English, teaching forensics. The following year, how-
ever, he was teaching argumentative composition, and had taken over
from Barrett Wendell the course in The Drama (Exclusive of Shake-
speare) from the Miracle Plays to the Closing of the Theatres. In
1895-1896 he was elevated to an Assistant Professorship, was conduct-
ing courses in forensics and debating, as well as in dramatic history,
and had published his Principles of Argumentation., the first modern
textbook on the subject

His earliest reputation was earned as a teacher of argumentation and
debating, and of public speaking. The course in Forms of Public Ad-
dress, which he introduced in 1900-1901, he continued to teach almost
as long as he was connected with the work in public speaking. He
believed intensely in the educational value of debating, and in what he
termed "public discourse." 28 But debating, as he pointed out in 1901,
was not "the most important part of our training in public discourse";
it was only a part of a larger whole. ". . . the teacher who insists that
intercollegiate debating is simply a subdivision of a subdivision (oral
discussion) of a larger field (public discourse) is the man who sees the
truth." 29

Several years before Theodore Roosevelt challenged the morality of
requiring debaters to argue against their own personal convictions,
Baker had encountered the problem, and in the article quoted here had
disposed of it neatly and with dispatch. There is, he insisted, a great
difference between teaching debating as training for persuasive argu-
mentation, and coaching a team for the purpose of winning contests.30

According to Foster, himself the author of an excellent text on argu-
mentation and debating, which in its several editions has been in use
for more than forty years, "the first man to develop systematic courses
of instruction in argumentation and debating was Professor George
Pierce Baker of Harvard University. To his pioneer work all later books
on these subjects seem much indebted." 31 His theories in this area of
public discourse were, of course, incorporated into his textbook, Prin-
ciples of Argumentation.

In 1900 he introduced his second course in dramatic history, The
Drama in England from 1642 to 1900, which he continued to teach
intermittently as long as he was in Cambridge. Although it was still
some years before he abandoned the field of public discourse, his inter-
est in the drama apparently overtook that in debating and public
speaking. In 1905, the year he was elevated to a full professorship, he
offered for the first time his English 47, which was destined to be "the
most celebrated academic course in America." 32

"English 47, English Composition.— The Technique of the Drama.

TRANSITION TO 20TH CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 429

Lectures and Practice," was a course in play writing, exclusively for
graduate students. With the exception of two or three scattered years,
when he was on leave, this course was offered every year at Harvard
until 1923-1924. In 1916 he introduced his 47a, an advanced course in
The Technique of the Drama. Along with his two courses in dramatic
history, both 47 and 47a were "omitted" in 1924-1925; and although the
first two of these were revived a year or so later, neither the 47 nor the
47a ever again appeared in a Harvard Catalogue.

Baker's course in playwriting, English 47, grew in popularity. It drew
many students who later became famous playwrights. By 1911 Percy
MacKaye could say, "Today, the study of the drama is more concen-
tratedly alive at Harvard than at any other spot in America. . . ." 33 But
though the students might write their plays, they had no certain way of
knowing whether they were good drama or not. The test of good drama
is audience response to an actual production. Baker "realized the neces-
sity of studying dramatic technique in connection with the practical
problems of production." 34 In 1912, therefore, he set up his 47 Work-
shop, "to meet a need steadily more evident in the course in dramatic
composition." 35

The 47 Workshop was in no sense a course, and no credit for the
work was ever given toward a degree at Harvard. It savored too much
of a technical course, which apparently did not fit into the Cambridge
scheme. It was essentially a producing and acting company, to which
anyone might be admitted who could meet rather rigid requirements.
The main purpose of the organization was "to try out interesting plays
written in the course in Dramatic Technique at Harvard University
and Radcliffe College."36

It would be difficult to overestimate the contribution which Baker
made to education in general, and to the development of the educa-
tional theatre in particular. He "brought writing for the stage into the
educational field as a subject of practical instruction and greatly stimu-
lated the little theatre' movement, then in its infancy." 37

Although Baker initiated instruction in playwriting and although his
47 Workshop was undoubtedly the most famous university producing
organization, it cannot be said that he first introduced dramatic ( stage)
technique into the college curriculum, or was responsible for its being
introduced. It is difficult, often impossible, to fix upon either the insti-
tution or the date where and when the first of any kind of instruction
was given. Percy MacKaye always felt that the lectures which his father
gave at Harvard in 1881, and later at Cornell, Rochester, Syracuse, and
elsewhere, were the original impetus that culminated in the introduc-
tion of such work, especially at Harvard.38 Any such influence is cer-
tain to be nebulous. There is evidence that at the University of North

430 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Dakota as early as 1905-1906 Frederick H. Koch was teaching the
Elizabethan drama through "a dramatic rendering of scenes from these
plays" as an "important feature of the work." 39 Similarly, at DePauw
University in 1910 Harry Bainbridge Gough was assigning parts in the
plays of Shakespeare in his Courses 5 and 6; and at Swarthmore Paul
M. Pearson was giving a course, Acting Drama, which in 1912 was in
its second year.40

Baker carried on his work at Harvard through the three decades
under consideration, and beyond. It should be added that it was the
persistent refusal of the Harvard authorities to recognize the value of
his work or to give it academic credit that led in 1924 to his resignation
and transference to Yale University. He established that "the classic
treatment of the play as a mere branch of literature is inadequate. . . .
Through his famous 47 Workshop at Harvard Professor Baker has be-
come the 'foremost scholar of the theatre in this country/ " 41

III

Earlier we remarked that in the oral reading of literature "the
mechanical, artificial, and exaggerated elocution of the nineteenth cen-
tury was abandoned for the more rational and restrained interpreta-
tion of the twentieth." Perhaps no one contributed more to that process
than Solomon Henry Clark of the University of Chicago.

Clark began his career as a public reader and teacher of reading at
the time when elocution was at its height. When he retired from active
teaching in 1921 he had seen an almost complete repudiation of the
excesses of the elocutionists. He was largely responsible for the adop-
tion of the concept of interpretation—and the term— to replace the out-
worn and discredited elocution. He admitted to having been in his
earlier days an elocutionist; but it was the "New Elocution" which he
advanced, advocated, taught in his classes, and practiced in his own
public appearances.

The only teacher to whom he ever acknowledged any indebtedness
was Alfred Ayers, with whom he studied during the summer of 1888
(he was born in 1861). The teachings of George Lansing Raymond,
whose Orators Manual appeared in the fifth edition in 1886,42 also
deeply impressed him. Otherwise, he seems to have been essentially a
self-taught man. He was at the organization meeting of the National
Association of Elocutionists in 1892, gave two papers/3 and entered
into the discussions with great interest. The following year he gave
another paper; 44 but his name soon disappeared from the roster of
members. Perhaps he felt with Winans, that to the teacher of reading,
as well as of public speaking, the Association had little to offer.

TRANSITION TO 20TH CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 431

After some years teaching in Canada he went in 1891 to Chautauqua,
New York, on his honeymoon, where he began his career as a reader
and a teacher of reading. It was there that he came to the attention of
William Rainey Harper, who was assembling a faculty for the new
university being established at Chicago. When the University of Chi-
cago opened in October, 1892, consequently, Clark was there as "Reader
in Elocution," and as head of the Department of Public Speaking.45
During his twenty-nine years at Chicago he built up a reputation as
one of the ten best readers in America,46 as well as one of the foremost
teachers of interpretation. Vachel Lindsay always insisted that it was
from S. H. Clark that he got many of his ideas of poetic structure, of
"tone color," of poetry as an oral art.47

When he came on the scene as a reader and a teacher of reading, he
saw what appeared to him to be "two hostile camps of extremists, each
equally sure he was right and his opponent altogether blind. One is
the so-called 'mechanical' school, with which the name of Diderot is
associated; the other has been aptly called the 'impulsive' school/'48
The first of these, he felt, dealt entirely with externals; the latter with
the inner being, the "psyche." Neither was by itself adequate. He
believed that there was a "common ground on which all may stand."

Out of all the writings by and about Clark 49 it is possible to derive
certain basic tenets of his philosophy of elocution, which contributed
in large degree to the transition into the rational interpretation which
he left when he retired from active duty as a teacher.

( 1 ) Reading is an art, a re-creative art in much the same sense as
music is an art.50 The reader as an artist needs creative ability and
technique. The "first requirement to artistic reading" is the intellectual
and imaginative ability to understand a good play or poem in its en-
tirety. As a re-creative art, the techniques of reading should be sug-
gestive rather than impersonative. Clark himself relied almost entirely
on his voice, which, by all accounts, was an "exceptionally magnificent
organ." 51 He even insisted on using the actual book and desk: "the
reader should actually read." 52 It was unnecessary either to set the
stage for a reading, or to locate the characters always in the same place.
"The reader . . . performs, so far as this feature of the art is concerned,
all that is required of him when he lets the audience know which char-
acter is speaking." 53

(2) The thought is paramount. Technique is important and cannot
be avoided, but it must be subordinated to the thought. The function
of the reader is to get the thought to the listener, rather than to exhibit
his virtuosity as a performer. "Appreciation of the meaning and beauty
of literature," he says, "is the first requisite of a successful teacher o£
reading." 54

432 RHETOBIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Because of the prime necessity of getting the author's thought, read-
ing becomes in itself an educative process. Vocal technique is useful as
a means of getting the thought, but once the thought is grasped through
the effective use of vocal technique, its expression should take care of
itself.

(3) Elocution should be based on sound psychology. In addition to
the cultural and mental training which derives from a study of psy-
chology, the elocutionist needs it for two other reasons. First, 'Vocal
expression is the outcome of complicated mental processes/' to com-
prehend which an understanding of psychology is necessary. Second,
it enables one to differentiate among the many "schools," and to reach
something like an honest judgment.55

(4) The reader must feel the emotion he is trying to portray:

It is not enough to know that literature is primarily an appeal to the emotions
through the imagination; that the purpose of literature is to arouse emotion
in the reader; that an author frequently describes with great exactitude and
detail the feelings of his characters. One must himself, in kind at least, if not
in fullest degree, experience imaginatively the same emotions or fail in whole
or in part to receive from the author all that he has given us.56

(5) The elocutionist must have a good education. He must be able
to recognize, understand, and appreciate good literature.57 He must be
able to analyze the selections he is to read, and a part of the training of
the reader involves learning how to make such analyses. Without an
understanding of the criteria of literary criticism and analysis, and
without a broad background of literature itself, such preparation would
be impossible. Furthermore, an understanding of psychology is im-
portant in that it is of great aid in getting at the author's underlying
intention.

Although Clark adhered to no particular "school" of elocution or
expression, actually he taught most of the mechanics of speech, such as
breathing, quality, time, emphasis, phrasing or grouping, and so on. It
is not evident, however, that he taught any of these elements as ends
in themselves. Always, in the final analysis, they were subordinate to
the thought.

As Current points out, he made a significant contribution to the res-
toration of the prestige of interpretation as an artistic performance.
"His chief contribution to interpretation as an art lay in what he did to
restore dignity and standing to elocution as a profession. In all parts of
the United States, he acted as an example of what sincerity and sim-
plicity of presentation can do to make spoken literature a thing of
beauty and pleasure." 5S

TRANSITION TO 20TH CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 433

Not all of those who contributed most to the transition that took
place between 1890 and 1920 were active throughout the three decades.
Many of them did not begin their professional services until well into
the period. Particularly is this true of the last three men discussed in
this paper.

James Albert Winans, born in 1872, received his Bachelor of Arts
degree in 1897 from Hamilton College, which "for more than a hun-
dred years ... has upheld the dignity of the spoken as well as of the
written word."59 Three years later he was awarded the M.A. degree.
In 1899 he was appointed Instructor in Elocution and Oratory at Cor-
nell University, being raised to the rank of full Professor of Public
Speaking in 1914. In the Fall of 1920 he left Cornell and went to Dart-
mouth College, where he remained until his retirement in 1942.

From the beginning of his professional career Winans was a vigorous
advocate of close association with others of similar academic interests.
"Teachers of oral expression are much too isolated; they receive far too
little of the stimulation and the broadening which result from contact
with their kind." 60 He joined the National Association of Elocutionists,
therefore, and attended the 1905 and the 1906 meetings. So far as is
known, he never went back. It was at the first of these meetings that he
spoke to the proposal to change the name of the Association, partly on
the ground that a new name would attract more members from the
colleges and universities: "I do not care a fig, which name we have.
So long as the Association does not call itself the Association of Public
Speakers, I am content: I shall fight that.61 ... A good deal has been
said about getting more members from colleges and universities. I do
not think it will influence those institutions from the fact that the Uni-
versities and colleges know who you are and what you are doing. . . .
You will have to have something different to offer them rather than a
different name." 62

It is not surprising, therefore, that he should seek the fellowship
of his colleagues who were academically minded in the field of public
address. Consequently, during the school year of 1909-1910, as a result
of conferences between himself and Wilbur Jones Kay, then of Wash-
ington and Jefferson, and Paul M. Pearson of Swarthmore, the Public
Speaking Conference of the New England and the North Atlantic
States was organized, and the first meeting held at Swarthmore in
April, 1910. Winans was there, and was put on the Editorial Board of
the Public Speaking Review, which began publication in September,
1911. He remained active in the Eastern Public Speaking Conference,
as it came to be known, for almost a third of a century.

434 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

In 1912 the National Council of English Teachers set up an Oral
English Committee, headed by James F. Hosic of the Chicago Teach-
ers' College, to provide for programs in oral English at its annual
meetings. But because the Committee could not appreciate the dis-
tinctive character of public speaking— to them it was simply another
aspect of English— agitation was begun for the complete separation of
the two disciplines. Winans actively supported O'Neill's contention that
there was a definite dividing line between the two, and added that
there were "practical reasons for separation." 63 Reporting on the third
annual meeting of the Council in November, 1913, he was able to
report that the teachers of English were becoming more and more
aware of the fact that English is a spoken language, that they were
beginning to see that "oral work, public speaking, is worth while for its
own sake." 64 But he was consistently skeptical of any suggestion that
the subjects could be successfully combined under a single discipline.

Consequently, he was one of the seventeen men who in 1914 seceded
from the National Council and formed the National Association of
Academic Teachers of Public Speaking, now the Speech Association of
America. He was its second President, and until well past his retirement
was a zealous participant in its activities.

Winans' most significant contribution to modern rhetorical theory
lay in the use he made of current psychological thought. It cannot be
said that he was the first to apply principles of psychology to rhetorical
theory; even Protagoras knew the importance of "appeals to pity"; John
Lawson, writing in 1759, had shown considerable understanding of
these principles, and George Campbell in 1776 had made further appli-
cation, especially with reference to the theory of persuasion. There is
no evidence, however, that any of these had made a definite study of
psychology as such in an effort to discover in what way it might be
useful to the rhetorician or the public speaker.

Herein lay in part Winans' claim to originality. At the second meet-
ing of the Public Speaking Conference in New York in 1911 he read a
paper on "The Attention of the Speaker," 65 in which he quoted directly
from E. B. Titchener and William James. In this paper he made use of
the concepts of "voluntary" and "involuntary" attention, together with
a third, as proposed by Titchener, the "secondary passive." From the
standpoint of the speaker, the third was the most important of all.
According to James, "what-we-attend-to and what-interests-us are
synonymous terms"; but this over-simplification did not solve the prob-
lem for Winans; *. . . we attend most easily and steadily," he argued,
"to those ideas and those statements which have for us the richest
intellectual and emotional context. The more things we know about a
topic, the more phases we have traced out, the more interests we have

TRANSITION TO 20TH CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 435

found the topic touches, the stronger is its grip upon our attention/'
For him attention and interest were not synonymous. We attend to
that which interests us; but conversely, we are also interested in what
we attend to.

One of the chief results to be desired is the effect on the delivery of
such extensive preparation as is implied in the principle thus formu-
lated:

We must think on our feet, think the full meaning of our words as we speak
them and keep attention firm, no matter what the distractions. The clearer
our understanding, the stronger the hold of the ideas upon our minds, the
more nearly we have approached the stage of passive attention, the easier our
task will be. ... If we have thought the matter through repeatedly, with vigor-
ous attention, the association of ideas will insure that our words shall repre-
sent large content. ... At any rate, the speaker must make sure that he de-
livers his words with full and definite consciousness of meaning.66

Two and one half years later Winans extended his theory of atten-
tion to include "the modern theory of volition or will, as set forth . . .
particularly well for our purposes by Professor James." 67 Briefly,
James's theory of volition was that "what holds attention determines
action. . . . One does not see any case in which the steadfast occupancy
of consciousness does not appear to be the prime condition of impulsive
power." 6S In applying this principle to persuasion, Winans then in-
quired, "Now taking James's statement as truth, is it not apparent that
to persuade a man, in the sense of moving his will, is nothing more nor
less than to secure and maintain his exclusive attention upon the desired
action? According to this theory, if you keep your undivided attention
upon an act, though it be murder, you will do the act."

The concept of the conversational manner, often attributed to Wi-
nans, was not original with him; it goes back into ancient rhetoric.69
He did place more emphasis on the idea than had most previous writers;
furthermore, he presented it in a textbook on public speaking which
became so widely used that the concept itself received a far greater
emphasis and currency than it had ever received before.

Winan's textbook, Public Speaking, first published in 1915, and run-
ning through many printings before being revised in 1938 as Speech-
Making., embodied all these theories and many more both rhetorical and
psychological. It was not the first modern textbook on public speaking;
but, as evaluated by O'Neill:

No other book dealing with the problem of speaking has ever presented the
results of so much and such accurate study in psychology. With "attention"
as the "key-word," Winans has written a book at once sound psychologically,
free from the common, external, mechanical approach to specific problems,
and at the same time clear, simple, interesting. The book is probably not the

436 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

last word on the psychology of public speaking. Its author neither claims nor
desires it to be. But it is, it seems to me, the most authoritative word that
has ever been spoken on this subject.70

Winans showed that rhetorical theory in order to be sound through-
out must also be sound psychologically. His work constitutes an im-
portant contribution to the process of integration by which all branches
of knowledge may ultimately be brought into complete and funda-
mental agreement. From 1915 on, no textbook on public speaking
which was intended to be taken seriously could omit specific considera-
tion of the psychological principles involved in the processes of influ-
encing human thought and human behavior. Winans' Public Speaking
was one of the few modern books to which the teacher or student of
public speaking could turn for authoritative instruction on spoken dis-
course. It provided a body of principle, both theoretical and practical,
that set the pattern for dozens of lesser books that were soon to follow.
It may well be said that by 1920 his writings, with their strong psy-
chological as well as rhetorical basis, had contributed largely to the
restoration to academic status of the theory and practice of public
speaking.

When Winans presented Ms paper on "Persuasion" he announced
that at the following meeting of the Conference "Professor Woolbert is
coming all the way from the University of Illinois to present his ideas,
which I am able to assure you are decidedly novel. . . . He will main-
tain . . . that persuasion and conviction are the same thing, and attempt
to beat down one of our proudly built division walls." The May, 1914,
issue of the Public Speaking Review reports that Woolbert did read
the paper, eliciting from Winans the hope that "he would soon treat the
subject more amply in book form." It was thirteen years, however,
before Woolberfs "novel" ideas on persuasion were given the treatment
in book form that Winans had asked for.71 His paper never appeared
in the Review, but he did give his theories considerable development
in a number of published articles.72

Charles Henry Woolbert, born in 1877, received his bachelor's degree
from Northwestern in 1900, and his master's degree from the Univer-
sity of Michigan in 1909. After some years teaching at Olivet and at
Albion Colleges, he went in 1913 to the University of Illinois, where
he remained for thirteen years, attaining to the rank of professor in
1924. In 1926 he accepted a position in the Department of Speech at
the State University of Iowa. He was there until his death in 1929. 7S

The paper which Woolbert presented to the Conference in 1914 was
not the first statement of his beliefs. Two years before he had read a

TRANSITION TO 20TH CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 437

paper before the National Speech Arts Association 74 on "The Science
of Persuasion," in which he seems for the first time to have repudiated
the principle that conviction, as an appeal to reason, is any different
from persuasion, as an appeal to emotion, or that the influencing of
belief is essentially different from the influencing of action.

Throughout his utterances and his writings Woolbert drew heavily
upon the principles of psychology, but upon a different psychology
from that of Winans, He was a thoroughgoing behaviorist in his psy-
chological beliefs, and made a constant and consistent effort to apply
the tenets of behaviorism in his teaching of speech. Among these tenets
were the hypotheses that mind is what the body is doing, and that the
body tends to act, and at its most efficient does act, all in one piece, as
an integrated whole. Everything that one does, therefore, may be
thought of in terms of behavior, explicit or overt, or implicit or covert.

Furthermore, intellectual and emotional behavior differ mainly in
that the one is characterized by a high degree of localization and con-
trol, whilst the other is diffuse, profound, and much less subject to
conscious control. On this basis, then, if conviction is thought of as an
appeal to belief and persuasion as an appeal to action, the distinction
disappears, because both types of response are equally forms of be-
havior. If, on the other hand, conviction is considered as an appeal to
the intellect and persuasion as an appeal to the emotions, once again
the distinction disappears, since in reality both of these also are equally
forms of behavior.

Conviction, then, is "mental action ... in all attempts of one mind to
move another we are dealing with the same phenomenon of action/'
In argument logic is not enough in itself; the textbooks

. . . have no theory to offer why a man will listen to the best logic in the world
and ignore it in his subsequent actions. They stake all on logic and reason, and
naively blink at the fact that the most vital forces in inducing action are other
than logical and rational. ... in the consideration of a science of persuasion
that is fundamental enough to reach all cases and big enough to provide a
real measure of results, we must give full consideration to personality., per-
sonal attitudes, personal inclination, personal bias, if you please. . . ,75

Ardent a behaviorist as he was, in one particular he departed from
the strict behaviorist point of view: whereas one of the basic tenets of
that school of psychology was objectivity, experimentation, Woolbert
was no experimentalist. In fact, he could sometimes be somewhat im-
patient of experimentally derived conclusions, when those conclusions
were in conflict with the results of his own subjective observations. The
only experiment he ever performed, so far as is known, was the one
required for his doctoral dissertation, and that one depended almost

438 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

entirely upon subjective evaluation. Paradoxical as it may seem, Wool-
bert was a subjective behaviorist.

The full development of his theory of persuasion took place over a
period of some fifteen years, from its first appearance in 1912 to its
final amplification in the 1927 revision of his Fundamentals of Speech.
But the series of articles in the Quarterly Journal of Speech Education
in 1919, together with his other presentations, made a profound impact
on the teaching of argumentation. One of the results of his development
was a reconsideration of the "general ends" of speech, which Phillips
had discussed in his Effective Speaking in 1908. Since there was no
distinction between influencing belief and influencing action, these two
were merged into one, which Woolbert called simply persuasion. But
what he did not see was that if acceptance of a belief was a form of
behavior, then understanding was no less so; hence there would be no
need of separating out information, or the securing of understanding,
as a distinct end of speech. In like manner all the other general ends
could be disposed of: since all the responses implied in those ends
were forms of behavior, the logical result of his theory would be the
insistence that actually there is but one general end of all speech,
namely, to obtain a response, and that any attempt to differentiate the
various types of response is contrary to sound psychological doctrine.

The second major application of his psychological beliefs was with
reference to the problem of delivery. His was the first attempt to
present a theory of delivery on the basis of the current academic psy-
chology. His interest in this subject was revealed in the first volume of
the Quarterly Journal of Public Speaking in 1915, when he analyzed
and criticized a number of current "systems" of expression which were
being taught. After evaluating these different approaches he con-
cluded:

The only way to get a pupil whose thinking does not guide him aright is to
take the thing apart and show him how it works ... as a matter of teaching
it is the one best way— after the thinking of the thought has been done— of
developing the student's powers of self-criticism and of cultivating good
speech habits, . . . The ultimate way of doing this is to analyze tone. . . .
Meaning is carried by the changes in the elements; to get the right meaning,
choose and use the right changes in the elements.76

It was just such an analysis that he attempted to make in his doctoral
dissertation at Harvard.

The full development of his investigations were not published until
1927; however, even in his first edition of the Fundamentals in 1920 he
had set up? on the basis of the decreasing totality of behavior pattern
and of increasing specificity of control, the order in which the four
tonal elements should be studied.77 This order arises out of the prin-

TRANSITION TO 20TH CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 439

ciple that one must begin his study of speech by learning to control
the grosser forms of behavior, and progress to the more delicate and
refined. Therefore, in acquiring mastery over these elements, he would
proceed in this order, "(1) Quality, (2) Force, (3) Time, and (4)
Pitch. This will have the sound biological advantage of following the
order in which our vocal mechanism grows; and it will tend to put the
emotional and the intellectual aspects of speaking each in its rightful
place."

But delivery meant more to Woolbert than voice alone. "A man speak-
ing," he said, "is four things, all of them needed in revealing his mind
to others. First, he is a will, an intent, a meaning which he wishes others
to have, a thought. Second, he is a user of language, molding thought
and feeling into words. Third, he is a thing to be heard, carrying his
purpose and words to others through voice. Last, he is a thing to be
seen, shown to the sight, a being of action to be noted and read through
the eye." 78 Control over bodily action was necessary not only because
meanings are read through the speaker's movements, but because gen-
eral bodily control was the basis for the control of the other three
aspects of speech, namely, voice, language, thought.

Delivery, then, involved both voice and action. But by no interpre-
tation can delivery be thought of in his philosophy as a separate phe-
nomenon. Delivery for him and the elocution of the elocutionists were
worlds apart. Speech can be expressed only through voice and visible
bodily action; it is a unified and integrated act, and although he had
insisted that the elements could and should be studied separately when
necessary, in actuality they could not be separated without destroying
speech itself. Woolbert placed strong emphasis on delivery because to
him delivery was as essential an aspect of speech as the thought itself;
in fact, it was the effectiveness of the delivery which made effective
communication of thought possible. Further, it was the delivery which
completed and gave body to the thought.

It was in his insistence upon the inescapable unity of the whole
speech process that Woolbert probably made his greatest and most
enduring contribution to the transition that occurred from 1890 to 1920.
The elocutionists had missed the point; there is little evidence that the
writers on rhetoric, as applied to public speaking, were fully aware of
it. Winans had the concept, but did not develop it. Although Wool-
bert's books did not appear until 1920, after that date scarcely a text-
book on speaking was written that did not take into account many of
the principles that he had advanced.

As Weaver pointed out in his excellent eulogy, "Woolbert had a
profound and persistent belief in our manifest destiny as a profession.
His was not a blind optimism. In pushing our frontiers forward and

440 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

staking out new claims he met with as many discouragements as most
of us have to meet. Yet he felt that a discipline as fundamentally useful
as speech must somehow come into its own if we but toil and faint
not" 79 There are relatively few people in the field of speech whose
philosophies and teachings should be known to every serious student of
the subject. Woolbert is one of these.

As early as 1901 George Pierce Baker had suggested the contest
nature of intercollegiate debating, comparing it with a game. The con-
cept was further clarified by Foster in 1908. But it appears to have been
fully developed only when James Milton O'Neill took up the problem
and through a series of papers and controversies succeeded in crystal-
lizing the specific nature of contest debating, and with it the true func-
tion of debate judges. Therein lies one of his most significant contribu-
tions to the development of speech pedagogy prior to 1920.

O'Neill was born in 1881, received his A.B. degree from Dartmouth
in 1907, and did graduate work at Harvard University and the Uni-
versity of Chicago. After four years teaching at Hotchkiss School, he
joined the faculty at Dartmouth in 1911, where he remained until 1915.
In that year he was appointed head of the Department of Public Speak-
ing at the University of Wisconsin. It was under his headship at Wis-
consin that the first university speech clinic was established under Dr.
Smiley Blanton, and the first doctorate specifically in speech awarded in
1922.

In the December, 1912, issue of the Public Speaking Review John
Adams Taylor of the University of North Dakota had published a paper
on "The Evolution of College Debating," in which he had pointed put
some necessary qualifications for judges. Selection of judges for a de-
bate, he suggested, was just like impanelling a jury for a trial. "Those
who have not formed a strong opinion are more desirable; it is easier
for them to determine which side gets nearer the truth." 80 Taylor's
own confusion lay in the fact that while he implied that the function of
the judges was to determine, as he said, "which side gets nearer the
truth/' he also advocated that decisions should be made, not on the
merits of the question debated, but on the arguments of their presen-
tation.

It was the basic concept of debating itself which could give rise to
such a statement about judging to which O'Neill took vigorous excep-
tion.81 Before we can determine what kind of judges we want, he
pointed out, we must first decide what we want them for: "we do not
want judges to 'determine which side gets nearer the truth,* but to

TRANSITION TO 20TH CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 441

express an expert opinion as to which side does the better debating.82
... Of course we all know that the truth for any judge is the side of the
question that he believes in. ... in any truth finding contest [the result]
must be that each judge will vote for the team that upholds the side
of the question that he happens to favor." The search for truth is an
admirable undertaking, O'Neill recognized; but intercollegiate debat-
ing and the search for truth are entirely different matters, and one
should not be confused with the other. It should then be obvious that
to serve as a judge one should know the principles and techniques of
debating, some of which are "probably not known to the man who has
never given time and attention to studying the art of debate— points on
which the keen business man, well known clergyman, or distinguished
college professor may have very unsound ideas or no ideas at all."

The controversy over the nature of contest debating, as distinguished
from either the search for truth or "debating as an academic study," in
which the purpose "is to teach students how to find and express that
which may truthfully be urged on either side of any question," 83 con-
tinued through the final issues of the Public Speaking Review and the
first four years of the newly founded Quarterly Journal of Public Speak-
ing. Throughout the argument O'Neill never lost sight of the principle
that although contest debating partakes of the nature of a game, an in-
tellectual sport, "classroom work in debating should certainly be train-
ing for 'real life'." "Of course," he insisted, "the purpose of all courses in
argumentation and debate is training for life and living." 84:

The argument over the nature of contest debating and the selection
of judges inevitably led to the question of the type of decision most
appropriate. According to Hugh Neal Wells, of the University of
Southern California, the decision should be rendered on the basis of
the preponderance of evidence— the "juryman's vote." Taylor had ad-
vocated much the same thing, but at the same time, paradoxically,
something like what came to be known as the "legislator's vote," in
which the decision rested on the judge's opinion as to which side came
more nearly to the truth, as developed in the arguments presented.
O'Neill himself urged the "critic's vote," in which the decision was given
on the basis of the merits of the debating. Since the "critic's vote" has
been adopted almost universally in the so-called "expert" judging of
debates, it is obvious that the present day attitude toward the basic
nature of contest debating and of the judges' decisions is due primarily
to the influence of O'Neill. A patent exception is in the case of the
"audience decision" in its various forms, to which he made little or no
contribution. Nor was he able to look with much favor on decisionless
debates, with which Woodward of Western Reserve had been exper-
imenting.85 The elimination of judges, he felt, was not a necessary

442 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

remedy for the ills that were occasionally encountered in contest
debating.

Mention has been made of the secession from the National Council
of English Teachers. O'Neill was in the thick of the events leading up
to secession, and contributed significantly to the final outcome.

The crux of the matter seems to have been in the inability of the
Oral English Committee of the National Council, under the chairman-
ship of Hosic, to recognize in public speaking anything more than
another aspect of English. To present the other side of the argument,
therefore, O'Neill presented a paper at the March, 1913, meeting of
the Public Speaking Conference on "The Dividing Line between De-
partments of English and Public Speaking," in which he urged that
there should be complete separation of the two lines of work, including
choosing of the instructional force, the planning of courses, division
of work, prerequisites, and the relation of the department to extracur-
ricular activities in public speaking.86

On the following November 8, at the annual banquet of the National
Council held in Chicago, O'Neill was asked to speak on "Public Speak-
ing and English." In this paper he carried the controversy directly to
his opponents. The deplorable condition of public speaking instruction,
which he admitted, was entirely the fault of the English departments,
which, having neglected the work that needed to be done, were now
insisting that there was nothing worth teaching. In the only situations
where public speaking was being taught effectively it was in those
schools where it had been entirely separated from English. Nor was
there any reason to expect that the situation would improve in the
future. The work of the two departments should be coordinated, "but
absorption of public speaking by departments of English is not to be
thought of." 87

Evidently the English Council was unwilling to accept his point of
view, even in the planning of the public speaking programs; for at the
very time of the meeting of the Council, which was attended by large
numbers of public speaking teachers, serious thought was being given
to the founding of an independent national organization,88 The fol-
lowing November (1914), when the Public Speaking section of the
Council met in Chicago, the question was again brought before the
group. After one motion had been tabled, another was presented the
following day and unanimously adopted to organize "The National
Association of Academic Teachers of Public Speaking, for the purpose
of promoting research and more effective teaching/'89 Among the
seventeen who were registered as charter members were Winans, Wool-
bert, and O'Neill. Probably in recognition of his initiative, O'Neill was
chosen the Association's first President, as well as the Editor of the

TRANSITION TO 20TH CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 443

Quarterly Journal of Public Speaking, which was to be launched the
following Spring. He was the only editor to serve two terms.

While it would obviously be unjust and incorrect to give to any one
person the entire credit for the beginning of what has been one of the
most significant single actions in the history of American speech edu-
cation, O'Neill contributed to the consummation of that action prob-
ably more than any other one individual.

Like Winans, Woolbert, and others, O'Neill was possessed of a pro-
found faith in the integrity of the profession, and in its future. As the
first Editor of the Journal he set forth the essential function of the
periodical, which was to be "a national organ owned and controlled
by the public-speaking teachers of the whole country, of a character
that will stand comparison with the professional journals of our col-
leagues in other departments," 90 His faith was further expressed in his
Presidential Address at the first annual Convention, held in Chicago in
November, 1915, in which he spoke on "The Professional Outlook": "It
is toward educational achievement that we must set our faces. It was
to educational achievement that this Association dedicated itself by the
very resolution that brought it into being as a formal organization. It
was formed 'for the purpose of promoting research and more effective
teaching'." 91

His ideals of speech pedagogy, to which he has adhered throughout
his forty years of professional activity, were summed up early in his
teaching at the University of Wisconsin, when he addressed the annual
State Teachers' Association on November 2, 1917, on "Aims and Stand-
ards in Speech Education." 92 In four areas of speech training, "voice
and the treatment of speech defects; second, debating; third, reading
and declamation; and fourth, oratory or original speeches," he de-
manded that "standards of intelligent, agreeable, effective communi-
cation" be set up, rather than those of "spectacular, unreal exhibition,"
and that the program be extended to include not only the few gifted
ones who need it least, but more important, the many who need it most,
in all speaking, whether public or private, "for every day and for great
occasions."

The aims, objectives, philosophies, even the basic concepts of speech
education which were passed on from 1920 to succeeding decades were
indeed quite different from those which had been inherited from the
1880's. Contributing to the changes that took place were many people
and many influences. But it seems to be no exaggeration to suggest that
of all those whose influence affected the course of development during
this period, the contributions of the six persons discussed here were

444 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

probably the most typical, even if one may be somewhat reluctant to
insist that they were the most significant.

Notes

1. See, for example, George Samtsbury, A History of Criticism and Literary
Taste in Europe from the Earliest Texts to the Present Day, 3 vols., 2nd ed., (Edin-
burgh, 1949). "Rhetoric long followed wandering fires," he says, "before it recog-
nized its true star and became Literary Criticism/* ( I, 14. )

2. William B. Chamberlain, "Report of the Committee on Elocution in Col-
leges/* Proceedings of the National Association of Elocutionists (hereafter cited as
Proceedings, with the year of the meeting) Third Annual Meeting, June 25 to
June 30> 1894, p. 147.

3. Public Speaking Review, I (September, 1911), 1.

4. Giles Wilkeson Gray, "Research in the History of Speech Education," QJS,
XXXV (April, 1949), 156-163.

5. Public Speaking Review, IV (May, 1914), 31. "There has been an inde-
pendent department for public speaking at Cornell for about twenty-five years/*
Werner's Magazine reported that "the chair of oratory" had been tendered to Mr.
Duncan C. Lee, a graduate of Hamilton College in 1891. [XV (April, 1893), 143.]

6. Emerson College of Oratory had by 1893 established a course leading to
the degree of A.M , embracing "studies equivalent to those required by any other
college of high standing granting this degree/' Winslow, "Shall Schools of Oratory
Confer Degrees?" Werners Magazine, XV (April, 1893), 128-129.

7. Personal letter from Thomas C. Trueblood, October 11, 1949.

8. Paul M. Pearson, "Intercollegiate Associations/* Public Speaking Review, 1
(December, 1911), 119-120.

9. David Potter, Debating in the Colonial Chartered Colleges, an Historical
Survey, 1642 to 1900 (New York, 1944), p. 96.

10. George Pierce Baker, "Intercollegiate Debating," Educational Review, XXI
(1901), 244-257.

11. (Boston, 1895.)

12. (New York, 1904.)

13. (Boston, 1908.)

14. (Chicago, 1915.)

15. (Chicago, 1908.)

16. (New York, 1915.)

17. (New York, 1920.)

18. Edward W. Scripture, The Elements of Experimental Phonetics (London,
1902), and Researches in Experimental Phonetics. The Study of Speech Curves
(Washington, 1906) are but two of these.

19. Werners Magazine, XVII (1895) and XVIII (1896).

20. (New York, 1906.)

21. Proceedings (1905), 235.

22. Proceedings (1893), 320.

23. Proceedings (1898), 27-38.

24. Proceedings (1896), 109-121.

25. Proceedings (1899), 14-26.

26. Public Speaking Review, I (November, 1911), 84-85.

27. John H. Frizzell, "Wilbur Jones Kay, 1873-1937," QJS, XXIV (October,
1938), 495-498.

28. "Intercollegiate Debating."

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

TRANSITION TO 20TH CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 445

31. William Trufant Foster, Argumentation and Debating (Boston, 1908), Pref-
ace, p. ix.

32. "Yale Wins Again," Nation, CXIX (December 10, 1924), 616.

33. Percy MacKaye, "George Pierce Baker," American Magazine, LXXIII (De-
cember, 1911), 180-182.

34. "Yale Wins Again."

35. George Pierce Baker, "The 47 Workshop," QJSE, V (May, 1919), 185-195.

36. Ibid.

37. National Cyclopedia of American Biography, XXV, 28-29.

38. Percy MacKaye, Epoch: The Life of Steele MacKaye, 2 vols. (New York,
1927), II, 58 ff.

39. University of North Dakota Catalogue, 1905-1906.

40. Paul M. Pearson, "The Drama in the Curriculum," Public Speaking Review,
II (1912), 7-12.

41. "Harvard's Loss is Yale's Gain," Current Opinion, LXXVIII (February,
1925), 202-203.

42. Chicago. An earlier edition was published in 1879.

43. "Psychology and Expression," Proceedings (1892), 31-35; and "Appre-
ciation of the Aesthetic in Poetry as an Aid to the Reader," ibid., 122-126.

44. "Marc Antony's Funeral Oration as a Study in Tact," Proceedings (1893),
221-232.

45. Personal letter from Mr. E. C. Miller, Registrar, University of Chicago, June
14, 1951. Although Mr. Miller writes of a Department of Public Speaking, the
Catalogue for 1893-1894 lists it as the Department of Elocution. For our present
purposes the distinction is unimportant.

46. Editorial, Werners Magazine, XVII (February, 1895), p. 139. Even at the
1893 Convention it was reported that "Mr. S. H. Clark carried off the recitational
honors of the Convention." "Notes on the Chicago Convention of Elocutionists/'
Werners Magazine, XV (August, 1893), 283-285. See also the October, 1893,
issue, p. 356.

47. Davis Edwards, "The Real Sources of Vachel Lindsay's Poetic Technique,"
QJS, XXXIII (April, 1947), 182-195.

48. "Psychology and Expression."

49. Lucille Mary Current, "A Study of Solomon Henry Clark as a Teacher of
Interpretation," unpublished M.A. thesis, Northwestern University, 1938. Bibliog-
raphy.

50. "Mental Technique and Literary Interpretation," in William B. Chamberlain
and S. H. Clark, Principles of Vocal Expression and Literary Interpretation (Chi-
cago, 1897), pp. 316-323.

51. Editorial, "S. H. Clark as a Reader," Werners Magazine, XVIII (April,
1896), 351-353.

52. Current, p. 57.

53. "S. H. Clark as a Reader."

54. Current, p. 57.

55. "Elocution and Psychology," Werner's Magazine, XVIII (March, 1896),
203-210.

56. Interpretation of the Printed Page (Chicago, 1915), p. 283. Italics m the
original.

57. "Education of the Elocutionist," Werners Magazine, XVI (May, 1894),
169-171.

58. Current, p. 112.

59. James Albert Winans, Public Speaking (New York, 1915), Dedication.

60. "We Need to 'Get together'," Public Speaking Review, 1 (February, 1912),
185-187.

61. In presenting the arguments for changing the name of the Association, Fulton
mentioned that the terms "Public Speakers" and "Public Speaking" had been sug-
gested,-Proceedings (1905), 234.

446 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

62. Proceedings (1905), 249,

63. J. A. Wmans, "Report of the March 24-25 Conference," Public Speaking
Review, II (April, 1913), 227-231. (This was the Public Speaking Conference.)

64. Public Speaking Review, III (December, 1913), 108-112.

65. Public Speaking Review, I (October, 1911), 41-47.

66. Ibid.

67. J. A, Winans, "Persuasion," Public Speaking Review, III (March, 1914),
196-200.

68. Ibid.

69. See Norman Joseph Attenhofer, "The Development of the Theory of the
Conversational Mode of Speech," unpublished M.A. thesis, Louisiana State Univer-
sity, 1951.

70. James Milton O'Neill, Review of Winans' Public Speaking. Quarterly Journal
of Public Speaking, II (April, 1916), 213-215.

71. Charles Henry Woolbert, The Fundamentals of Speech, Revised Edition
(New York, 1927). The first edition, published in 1920, made no mention of the
problem of persuasion.

72. "Conviction and Persuasion: Some Considerations of Theory," Quarterly
Journal of Public Speaking, III (July, 1917), 249-264; "Persuasion: Principles
and Method," QJSE, V (January, 1919), 12-25; (March, 1919), 101-119; (May,
1919), 212-238.

73. Andrew Thomas Weaver, "Charles Henry Woolbert," QJS, XVI (February,
1930), 1-9,

74. This was, of course, the old National Association of Elocutionists.

75. "The Science of Persuasion," Proceedings (1912), 42-48.

76 "Theories of Expression: Some Criticisms," Quarterly Journal of Public
Speaking, I (July, 1915), 127-143.

77. The Fundamentals of Speech (1920), pp. 154 ff.

78. Ibid., p 3. See also his "Analysis of the Phases of Speech," pp. 7-9.

79. "Charles Henry Woolbert."

80. John Adams Taylor, "The Evolution of College Debating," Public Speaking
Review, II (December, 1912), 97-105.

81. *7U(*ges £°r Intercollegiate Debates," Public Speaking Review, II (January,
1913), 135-138.

82. Woolbert had also presented this point of view in his paper on "The Science
of Persuasion"; but Adams had indicated that the judges should do both.

83. J. M. O'Neill, "Game or Counterfeit Presentment?" Quarterly Journal of
Public Speaking, II (April, 1916), 193-197.

84. Ibid.

85. Howard S. Woodward, "Debating without Judges," Quarterly Journal of
Public Speaking, I (October, 1915), 229-233. See also J. M. O'Neill, "Judges
Again," pp. 305-307, of the same issue.

86. Public Speaking Review, II (April, 1913), 227-231.

87. Public Speaking Review, III (January, 1914), 132-140,

88. J. M. O'Neill, "The National Association," Quarterly Journal of Public
Speaking, I (April, 1915), 51-58.

89. Ibid.

90. Ibid.

91. J. M. O'Neill, "The Professional Outlook," Quarterly Journal of Public
Speaking, II (January, 1916), 52-63,

92. "Aims and Standards in Speech Education," QJSE, IV (October, 1918),
345-365.

Origin and Development of
Departments of Speech

DONALD K. SMITH

In 1900 there were no departments of "speech." Today there are
hundreds of them, even if one excludes the related titles under which
speech instruction is organized. In 1944 the United States Office of
Education used its own survey of speech departments to assure the
educational world that "the expressive arts have gained full recognition
in college programs of study." * And in 1948, the American Council on
Education began to use "speech" as a category for classifying graduate
degrees awarded in this country.2

Our task here is to answer four questions:

1. What educational trends brought about the development of de-
partmental structure in American higher education?

2. What specific circumstances account for the emergence of depart-
ments of speech as one of the many subdivisions of the modern cur-
riculum?

3. When and where did speech departments develop?

4. What happened to the speech curriculum when speech acquired
departmental status?

If departments of instruction are considered as a sort of pre-ordered
division of the world of learning, they are very ancient. For a good
many centuries the seven liberal arts— fortified as time went on by
Aristotelian philosophic studies and by the classical languages and lit-
erature—constituted the curriculum of higher education. This was the
curriculum of the arts course in England at the time of the colonizing
in America, and it became the curriculum of the first American college
at Cambridge.3 Within this prescribed curriculum, however, depart-
ments of instruction had no administrative significance, and could not
be said to exist in the modern sense of college departments.

447

448 KHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

The department in its modern sense came into being late in the
nineteenth century when the structure of higher education underwent
profound changes. The modern department not only designated a sig-
nificant division of the world of learning, but it also assumed important
administrative functions. The birth of departments at Harvard is typ-
ical. Commenting on the emergence of departmentalism, Herrick points
out that the Harvard catalog of 1836-1837 showed "no visible de-
partments; apparently this indispensable subdivision of higher educa-
tion had not yet appeared. The department as Harvard knows it today
seems to have sprung fully armed from the great administrative re-
organization of 1889-1891 After 1891, however, the department

became the very focus of instruction at Harvard, Issuing special pamph-
lets of its courses, discussing and arranging course programmes, plan-
ning assaults on the corporation for more money'." 4 Both Greene and
Coulton place the development of the college department as subse-
quent to I860, with the full realization of departmentalism coming
near the turn of the twentieth century.5

Departmentalism resulted from the vast expansion of higher edu-
cation during the nineteenth century. Expansion had many dimensions,
both physical and philosophic. In retrospect, four of its aspects seem
to have made a departmental structure for higher education all but
inevitable.

The development of new learning, in the first place, produced a vast
body of knowledge, and new methods for increasing knowledge, which
made obsolete the comfortably prescribed boundaries of the old clas-
sical curriculum. For a time the prescribed curriculum met the flood
tide of new knowledge in chemistry, mathematics, history, political
science, economics, and the modern languages by inserting new courses
into the old curriculum, and by shortening old ones.6 Eventually this
sort of stop-gap accommodation had to give way to fundamental admin-
istrative reform.

Second, the development of specialization forced the development of
numerous and narrowly defined segments of the curriculum. American
universities, much influenced by the practices of German universities,
came to value specialization as an answer to the obvious impossibility
of a single prescribed curriculum.7 They developed the elective system
so that students might choose among the many specialties.8 Depart-
ments operated as administrative agencies to control the nature of
studies offered within the various specialties.

Third, the concept that useful or practical knowledge was suitable to
higher learning contributed to the expansion of courses and to the
establishment of departments for administering the courses. Within a
climate of pragmatic and utilitarian thought, the nineteenth century

DEVELOPMENT OF DEPARTMENTS OF SPEECH 449

witnessed progressive deterioration of educational theories which
would have maintained a comfortably prescribed curriculum. At Cor-
nell,9 and at the great state universities of the West, effort was made
to provide university departments and courses which could answer the
needs and aspirations of all the citizens of the state.10

The final catalyst of departmentalism was the expansion of college
enrollments. College enrollments more than doubled in the last quarter
of the nineteenth century.11 This expansion added the pressure of num-
bers to the administrative burdens of higher education, thus placing
more and more emphasis upon the importance of the college de-
partment.

The modern college department, accordingly, was born out of the
pressures of new knowledge, specialization, new utilitarian concepts of
the functions of education, and swelling enrollments. It judged the fit-
ness of course offerings, the relationships of courses to one another; it
set up prerequisites, and programs for majors and minors; it cultivated
the expansion of knowledge in its own segment of the academic globe,
and looked anxiously to unoccupied territory between itself and neigh-
boring departments; it sought money and equipment, and made recom-
mendations for appointments, promotions, and salary changes.

By the twentieth century, teachers in American colleges and uni-
versities found their individual aspirations and their aspirations for
their instructional area increasingly involved with the sort of depart-
ment within which they were working. It is understandable that men
interested in the teaching of speech felt that the path of both hope
and opportunity led from the establishment of an autonomous de-
partment.

The departmentalization of American education proceeded rapidly
between 1860 and 1900. During this period, autonomous organization
of speech instruction was a possibility, and actually took place in some
institutions. In general, however, speech instruction became the re-
sponsibility of departments of English language and literature. Later,
after the turn of the century, separate departments of speech appeared
in a majority of American institutions of higher education, although the
association with English persists to the present day in many insti-
tutions.12

Speech a fart of English

Teachers of speech have sometimes expressed surprise that the field
of English literature led curricular instruction in the skills of writing

450 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

and speaking into a new department of learning.13 This did not happen
in all institutions, of course. In some few institutions, departments of
rhetoric, oratory, or elocution developed by the side of departments of
English literature. In some schools departments of public speaking
emerged from the departments of rhetoric or elocution without an
interlude within a department of English. But the most important
single growth of a department in the area of language and litera-
ture, at the end of the nineteenth century, was that which saw newly
formed departments of English, with some variety of titles, assuming
control over the teaching of writing, and such teaching of speaking as
was included in the curriculum.

A number of forces doubtless influenced the linking of literature,
writing, and speaking. Most important, perhaps, was the fact that the
study of English literature appeared in the curriculum as the protege
of the venerable study of rhetoric. Rhetoric, with its traditional con-
cern for the arts of discourse, had been an established part of the
curriculum from medieval times. During the first half of the nineteenth
century, however, the study of rhetoric both in England and America
was increasingly identified with the study of literature and literary
criticism. Potter calls Hugh Blair the "Father" of English literature in
Britain, although there were scattered earlier lecturers.14 The popular-
ity of his Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres in this country is
credited by Guthrie with giving impetus to the interest in criticism and
literary taste which was to carry rhetoric into the field of English lit-
erature.15 Guthrie also observes that the grouping of rhetoric with
oratory in the early American colleges, had, by 1850, become more
frequently a grouping of "Rhetoric and Belles Lettres/' with attention
to the practice of speaking, at least as involved in delivery, "now rele-
gated to the tremendously popular 'Elocution." In Guthrie's words:

... an examination of a few college catalogues will indicate the time and

manner of the change In 1834 (at Harvard) when Whately replaces

Blair for sophomores, the lectures given by the Boylston professor are no
longer on rhetoric and oratory, but on rhetoric and criticism. ... In 1854 the
rhetoric heading for lectures has disappeared, and the Boylston professor lec-
tures on "English Language and Literature."

At North Carolina it was professor of "rhetoric and logic" in 1826, but of
"rhetoric and belles lettres" in 1838. The Pennsylvania Professorship of Ora-
tory and English Literature became a chair of "Rhetoric and English Litera-
ture" in 1834, and "Belles Lettres and English Literature" in 1855. ... At
Yale Chauncey Goodrich was Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory in 1817, but
... in 1839, his replacement, William A, Lamed, is listed as Professor of
Rhetoric and English Literature.16

The movement of rhetoric toward the study of belles lettres is under-
standable if one recalls the form taken by rhetorical instruction in

DEVELOPMENT OF DEPARTMENTS OF SPEECH 451

higher education— a form in which lectures about rhetoric, and the
study of rhetorical models served as the curricular basis for practical
exercises in discourse. Thus, the study of rhetoric in terms of orations
may well have suffered from the fact that, as Professor Rarig has
observed, "the taste for reading old orations had to be acquired." 17
The pleasures of studying imaginative literature seem to have stimu-
lated an hegira by a number of famous American teachers from oratory
to literature, and many persons joined newly formed Departments of
English.

The development of the field of English at Harvard University was
closely associated with the influence of Professor Francis J. Child, who
moved from the Boylston Professorship to become in 1876 a professor
of English. Bliss Perry's account of his own teaching career relates a
similar transition, as he moved from an initial interest in elocution and
oratory to literature and criticism.18 At the University of Mississippi,
where a chair of English literature appeared as early as 1858, the link
between English literature and speech instruction was set in 1873, with
the appointment of J. J. Johnson as "Professor of English and Provisional
Instructor in Elocution/7 19 At Cornell, the first catalog includes the
name of Homer B. Sprague as professor of rhetoric, oratory and vocal
culture, and his interest brought English literature into the curriculum.
His successor in the chair of rhetoric and oratory, in 1870, was Pro-
fessor Hiram Corson, whose primary interest was the English literature
and language, and who moved within one year to be relieved from the
"care of these less congenial branches [of rhetoric and oratory] leav-
ing only that field of English language and literature which now re-
ceived formal recognition in his title." 20

Added to the historical and personal ties which bound literature to
the skills of practical discourse was a certain lack of independent *
vitality within the area of rhetoric, i.e., the fields of elocution, oratory,
and written composition. By the last half of the nineteenth century
rhetoric was off on one of its periodic forays into dispersing and en-
feebling itself. Part of its energy, some would say the better part, had
gone into belles lettres. Its attention to the skills of discourse had
become increasingly narrow, and closely identified with undergraduate
theme writing.21 Even in this narrow concern, it was increasingly a
part-discipline, for the relatively recent field of English grammar also
claimed the task of teaching students to write.

These two "part-studies" were ultimately to accompany one another
into the desolate wastes of Freshman rhetoric, or Freshman English.
The atmosphere which has surrounded discussion of beginning instruc-
tion in composition for more than half a century tends to indicate that
one of the practical reasons for tying composition to literature has been

452 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

the humane necessity for providing an avenue of hope for teachers of
composition.

The development of college entrance requirements in English served
to strengthen the bond between instruction in composition and litera-
ture. As early as 1874 Harvard had set up an entrance examination in
English, but the move toward uniformity in such requirements came
after 1888. In that year the New England Commission for Colleges "set
a list of books for reading as the preparation for the [entrance] exami-
nation in English." In 1892 the famous Committee of Ten of the Na-
tional Education Association called a conference on English at Vassar
college, and recommended that literature and composition be unified
in the high-school course. In 1893 the Association of Colleges and
Preparatory Schools of the Middle States and Maryland set the pattern
for the development of uniform college entrance examinations. These
examinations tested the reading of a fixed list of English masterpieces,
and knowledge about some aspects of English grammar and syntax.22
Entrance examinations set a link between high-school work in English
and beginning college work in composition which was to affect both,
in that composition was linked with literature and skills in speech were
largely ignored. An occasional voice was raised to protest the omission
of speech.23

The elocutionary movement represented another aspect of dispersed
rhetoric of the ninetenth century. As early as 1827 Ebenezer Porter
observed that elocution had been taught for some years "in the most
respectable school in the country/' and predicted its general invasion
of the college curriculum.24 Actually academic attention to elocution
was erratic. The coming or going of specially trained teachers deter-
mined its status. In schools of the Middle West, Trueblood observed
that the teaching of public speaking in the seventies and after was
largely in the hands of itinerant teachers, most of whom were, of
course, trained in the tradition of elocution.25 At the end of the century,
however, with departmentalism growing in the college curriculum, both
the title and the practices of elocution were sufficiently strong to secure
the establishment of separate departments of elocution in a number of
colleges.26 There were certain complications apparent in the claims of
elocution for departmental status in academic circles. For one thing,
the teaching of elocution, like the teaching of composition, was by the
end of the nineteenth century associating itself more and more closely
with literary criticism and appreciation.27 This association emphasized
the claims of English departments to the whole field of language and
literature. For another thing, the status of elocution, both as a word
and as an instructional discipline, was in considerable question by the

DEVELOPMENT OF DEPARTMENTS OF SPEECH 453

end of the century. It had ceased to be a required subject at Harvard
in 1873. 2S By 1900 the new School of Oratory at Texas University was
making explicit note in its announcement that its purpose was not train-
ing in "elocution." By 1915 college teachers of public speaking were
inserting the word "academic" into the title of their new association to
dissociate themselves with the "elocutionists" of the private schools.
Some teachers of speech seemed anxious to escape the title of elocu-
tion.29 The academic vitality of elocution, therefore, was considerably
vitiated by its own internal problems of direction and depleted prestige.
In retrospect, neither the practice of rhetoric nor the practice of
elocution, as it was conceived in the colleges in the last half of the
ninetenth century seems to have possessed the status necessary for the
general emergence of a department separate from English literature.

The Pressure for Separate Departments

English departments seem often to have been an early, if unpremedi-
tated, experiment in welding into a single department the work of
teachers of diverse interests. The ties between speech instruction and
the English department appear to have been particularly tenuous. In
some schools, as has already been noted, these ties were never achieved.
In other schools, speech instruction perambulated through a variety of
associations, only to lose curricular status once it was associated with
English. The peripatetic nature of speech instruction is particularly
well illustrated by its course at the University of Mississippi. There,
from 1856-1868 formal instruction in elocution was given within the
department of Belles Lettres, and Moral and Mental Philosophy; in
1868 it was moved to the department of Logic, Metaphysics, and Polit-
ical Science; in 1873 it was joined with the chair in. English, and in
1886 went into a separate department of Elocution. In 1905 a School of
Rhetoric and Oratory made a brief appearance, but at the end of that
year this school went into the new School of English, and instruction
in oratory disappeared. In 1908 a new Department of Oratory was
formed, whereupon speech instruction appeared once more within the
curriculum.30

The movement in the field of speech for the establishment of depart-
ments separate from English grew, therefore, out of a background of
departmental organization in which neither the place of speech instruc-
tion in the curriculum, nor the conditions of its association with English
had achieved any measure of stability. Such a situation produced the
immediate context for a separatist movement, but there were at least
four specific sorts of pressures which were to give real impetus to

454 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

separation: (a) the pressure created by the specialization of interest
within English, (b) the outspoken discontent of speech teachers work-
ing in departments of English, (c) the claims of a neglected tradition
and "new" types of course work for a sympathetic administrative home,
and (d) the pressure of student interests for curricular recognition of
speech.

Specialization of Interest Within English Departments

The opportunity for the development of the field of English came
in the last half of the nineteenth century as science and utilitarianism
were carrying on their successful assault upon the body of ancient
classical education. As the hold of classical languages and literature
upon the curriculum was broken, the study of the modern languages
emerged, including a new emphasis upon the study of the English
language and literature. Observing the nature of the pressure upon
classical studies, one might expect that the new field of English would
have been a little less militantly remote from the affairs of everyday
life than had been the classics. Such an expectation would overlook
both the massive conservatism of education and the entrenched pres-
tige of great literature as the source of liberal learning. It would also
overlook the fact that the men who were to become leaders in the new
departments of language and literature were products of the linguistic
tradition, and that many of these men derived their methods of study
from German scholars. While the modern languages, including English,
had fought with the classics in their search for recognition, it was a
struggle in which they sought not to destroy the prestige of traditional
linguistic education, but rather to take over and protect that tradition
from the threatening spectre of utilitarianism.31 Consequently the
emerging field of English tended to emphasize not instruction in the
practical skills of discourse, but intensive philological history and
criticism.

Philology has been used to describe many academic pursuits. In a
narrow sense the philological approach to literature involved the in-
tensive study and interpretation of a text; in a broader sense it involved
the study of a literary genre.32 More recently philology has included
linguistics, the study of the structure and development of languages.
Both as linguistics and as intensive literary study, it identified the
approach to the study of English which gained the greatest attention
of English scholars in the last decades of the nineteenth century and
the first decades of the twentieth. But whether English departments
emphasized literature or linguistics, they found small place for teachers
of speaking and writing.

DEVELOPMENT OF DEPARTMENTS OF SPEECH 455

The Discontent of Speech Teachers

The first important public demand for the separation of speech and
English came from the Public Speaking Conference of the New
England and North Atlantic states. On March 25, 1913, during its meet-
ing at Yale University, the Conference passed this resolution:

Whereas, The principle and practice which are the foundation of excellence

in public speaking form a unified body of material to a large extent separate

and different from the content of the usual college department of English;

and

Whereas, The best interest of the students are promoted by placing the

instruction in all the elements of public speaking in the hands of a trained

and organized department of specialists; be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of this conference that departments of Public

Speaking in American colleges should be organized entirely separate from

departments of English.33

A year later, the Public Speaking Review, which was being pub-
lished by the Conference, carried an article by the editor, J. M. O'Neill,
on "The Dividing Line Between Departments of English and Public
Speaking." This article reported the chaotic condition of existing in-
terrelations between English and public speaking departments, and
sought to define the basis for division.34 In 1914, the National Asso-
ciation of Academic Teachers of Public Speaking was launched, in the
words of the National Council of Teachers of English, "by some of the
more aggressive of the teachers of public speaking in the colleges." 35
In the recollection of the men who established this group, the "need"
for departmental autonomy was one of the motives which prompted the
interest of a number of these teachers in the new organization.36
O'NeilFs address to the association, as its first president, reaffirmed his
belief in the necessity for separation from English. In the new Quarterly
Journal of Speech Education, Professor C. E. Lyon, then head of the
department of Public Speaking at the University of South Dakota,
reported a survey of departmental organization in the English-speech
areas. His survey of 60 institutions seems to have been concentrated on
those which already had separate departments of public speaking.
However, thirteen of the thirty-six institutions replying taught speech
within the English department, and from the replies he found: "the
most striking thing about the situation is that in eleven of the thirteen
cases where they are not separated, those in authority (professionally)
believe in the resolution favoring complete separation. And the two dis-
senting opinions are from professors of English." 3T

In the Quarterly Journal of Speech Education ( 1916) C. H. Woolbert,
a member of the Department of English at the University of Illinois,

456 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

argued that speech and English were "essentially different disciplines,"
that they differed in viewpoint and outlook, that speech was associated
with the pure sciences of physics, physiology, anatomy and psychology,
and that the attitude of the English scholar toward speech was "almost
inevitably hostile, or at best luke warm." He observed that a practical
difficulty faced the professor of speech whose closest associates spoke
a different language and whose budget was controlled by scholars with
different enthusiasms.38

The Claims of Subject Matter

In themselves, the aspirations of individuals within English depart-
ments would scarcely have added up to a movement for separatism.
But by 1910 there was another, though related pressure for separation—
a pressure alluded to in the New England resolution and by Woolbert,
Speech teachers were asserting with increasing force the claims for a
distinctive subject matter. One claim came from the ancient field of
rhetoric and another from the contributions of science to the study of
speech behavior.

Rhetoric, as has been observed, had fallen upon evil days after 1850.
The unified study of speech-making, embracing concern for practical
discourse as well as aesthetic, and for ideas and arrangement as well
as for style and delivery, had never been completely forgotten. But as
the teaching of written composition grew more narrow and as the dis-
taste for elocution grew, the traditional rhetoric was reasserted. A
curricular concern for practical, argumentative discourse became ap-
parent in American colleges as early as the decade 1880-1890, with the
introduction of course work in debate.39 After 1900, courses in public
speaking grew in number as courses in elocution dwindled. These
courses reflected to some extent the comprehensive theory of practical
discourse which had been the heritage of ancient rhetoric.40

The subject matter and purposes of public speaking courses could
present a heritage as militantly classical as that of literature, while yet
suiting the pragmatic temper of modern America. The field of public
speaking, moreover, had sought new vigor from the modern sciences,
particularly psychology, from which it derived material for the study
of audience behavior. As a result, "composition" in the public speaking
class embraced audience study and analysis, an emphasis not seen in
courses in written composition within departments of English. Speech
departments not only drew strength from the teaching tradition of
classical rhetoric, they also served to establish scholarly study in the
field of rhetoric at the graduate level, in both the study of rhetorical
theory and the study of oratory. As early as 1915 the Northwestern

DEVELOPMENT OF DEPARTMENTS OF SPEECH 457

School of Oratory listed a course in The History of English Orations
and Oratory, at the postgraduate level. A marked innovation was the
course in Classical Rhetoric offered for the first time at Cornell Uni-
versity in 1923. By 1930 the field of rhetorical study had developed
considerably at Cornell, with courses in British Orators, in The History
of Rhetoric and Oratory, and a course in American Orators, which
was listed but not taught until after that year. A course in American
Orators was offered in 1930 at the University of Iowa.41

The uses of science to the study of speech inspired Woolbert's reloca-
tion of the field of speech in an area quite foreign to the interests of
many English departments. The early affinity of scientists for speech,
and speech teachers for science, had been somewhat erratically demon-
strated in the elocutionary movement.42 However, the second decade
of the twentieth century saw the appearance of new courses in the
correction of speech disorders, the anatomy and physiology of voice,
and laboratory research into voice phenomena. These new courses
were in general the product of specialization in autonomous depart-
ments of public speaking. These departments were also reaching into
the field of phonetics, which was having problems of its own in finding
a comfortable administrative home.

The growth of speech science may be observed in the appearance
of a variety of courses. As early as 1910 the College of Idaho had a
course entitled Anatomy, Physiology, and Hygiene of Voice and De
Pauw was offering a course in The Psychology and Sociology of Ora-
tory.43 In 1914 a course in Voice Training and Phonetics was offered
within the Department of Public Speaking at the University of Wiscon-
sin, and in 1916 a course in the Psychology of Speaking and Reading
was added. Professor Merry went to the University of Iowa in 1915 in-
terested in studying speech phenomena experimentally, and offered a
seminar in speech for graduate students in that year. By 1920 he was
giving a course in The Psychology of Speech: Voice Science and
Laboratory. In 1923 a course in Voice Science was offered for the first
time at Wisconsin.

For the most part the curriculum for training speech correctionists
developed after 1920, although as early as 1913 Professor Smiley Blan-
ton gave a course on speech defects at the Cornell University Summer
Session.44 Dr. Blanton moved to the University of Wisconsin that fall
to open what may have been the first clinic exclusively concerned with
speech disorders, and to offer a course in the Correction of Speech De-
fects. A course in speech correction was also offered by Professor Scrip-
ture at Teachers College in 1919-1920. Michigan was offering a course
in speech correction in 1918, but it appears from the catalog descrip-
tion to have been a remedial course for students with "vocal weak-

458 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

nesses/' rather than for the training of specialists. Iowa listed a course
in The Correction of Speech Disorders for the first time in 1922-1923,
and at the same time announced the launching of a training program in
the field of speech correction jointly with the Child Welfare Research
Station of that university. Courses in the sciences of speech correction
could claim as sanctions the enormous reputation of scientific learning.
Moreover, they existed as a sort of living demonstration that the field
of speech had boundaries quite remote at certain points from the cen-
ters of literature and composition.

Thus, the claims of old knowledge reasserted and the stimulus of
new knowledge derived from the sciences helped establish the right of
speech to departmental status.

The Demands of Students

A considerable portion of the practical training in speaking received
by students in American colleges had always been through student
activities, whether the activities took the form of required, faculty super-
vised declamations and orations, or whether they followed the voluntary
path of the literary societies. Until the latter part of the nineteenth
century, numerous institutions of higher learning provided through
rhetorical exercises and the work of the literary societies an emphasis
upon speech often far greater than that found today.45 Under the
pressure of expanding student enrollments and the reorganization of
the college curriculum in terms of courses, rhetorical exercises were
largely to disappear prior to the end of the century.46 By the end of the
century, also, the influence and activity of the literary societies were
declining, although the societies persisted for varying periods of time
in different colleges.47 The disappearance of these traditional avenues
for speech activity left little opportunity for speech training in many
schools. This opportunity was to be re-established both by the develop-
ment of course work in speech,48 and the development of new forms
of extracurricular speaking activity, The course work was often directly
related to the activity. Intercollegiate debating, which developed gen-
erally after 1894 marked one new line of activity and by 1910-1920
course work in debate had become the most popular speech offering.49
Intercollegiate oratory was another activity to develop and the appear-
ance of the college theatre in the twentieth century claimed the interest
of many students. Courses in theatre, after a few beginnings in the
decade 1910-1920, developed spectacularly after 1920. These student
activities, with their demonstrated appeal to student interest, were to
form the basis, first, for the development of course work designed to
give academic recognition to the educational significance of the activ-

DEVELOPMENT OF DEPARTMENTS OF SPEECH 459

ity, and second, for the formation of speech departments to direct both
the activities and the courses associated with them.

The direct influence of student interest and pressure upon the forma-
tion of speech departments can be illustrated in the experience of a
number of institutions. At the University of Michigan, Thomas True-
blood observed that after he had been given co-operation by the Eng-
lish Department and the Law School, in offering a course in elocution
and oratory, pressure developed among the law students for granting
of free tuition and credit for the course. A petition from the law stu-
dents was granted, and a subsequent petition from the Literary College
students was also granted. Thus it was that Professor Trueblood re-
ceived a full-time appointment at the University of Michigan in 1889, to
be followed in 1892 by the organization of a separate department under
his direction.50

A similar experience is recorded at the University of Mississippi,
where student petitions resulted in the re-establishment of the School
of Oratory in 1908, after its merger with the Department of English in
1906 had eliminated instruction in oratory.51 Lathrop credits the
founding of the Department of Public Speaking at Louisiana State Uni-
versity in 1911 directly to the interests which had developed in debat-
ing in the decade preceding.52 At Wabash College, agitation by the
literary societies is credited with influencing the development of a
department of public speaking in 1913.53 And Gray's history of the
University of Minnesota notes the growth of student interest in speech
courses and activities which preceded the creation of an autonomous
department at that institution in 1927.54

It would be a gross oversimplification of events to view speech de-
partments as the direct product of student demand for speech instruc-
tion. Yet many of the courses from which they took their curriculum
were the product of student activity and interest, and the men who
directed student activities, or taught the related courses, were the
teachers who sought academic status and administrative autonomy for
speech.

The modern department of speech is a reflection of the forces which
were shaping American higher education in the nineteenth and twen-
tieth centuries. But not until the twentieth century did the impact of
science and utilitarianism, of student interest and curricular specializa-
tion begin fully to be realized in the curricular area of the languages
and literature. Speech departments, accordingly, came into being as an
expression of the great forces which were changing the American edu-
cational scene, as these forces converged with the interest and energies
of men who made the teaching of speech their profession.

460 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION., AND SPEECH

III

Determining a specific date for the establishment of any speech de-
partment is complicated. The observation of Herrick, Greene, and
Coulton that departments can scarcely be said to have existed in their
modern sense prior to 1890 seems to place a sort of preliminary date on
their establishment Nevertheless, it is possible to observe earlier rec-
ognition of speech as an independent area of instruction in a number of
institutions, and to see that this early recognition, with the administra-
tive and disciplinary continuity it gave to the field of speech, doubtless
hastened the widespread appearance of autonomous departments of
speech in the twentieth century.

Perhaps no college in America has given more ancient and persistent
emphasis to speech instruction than has Hamilton College. The history
of speech at this institution deserves some consideration. It represents
a development somewhat different from that in most schools; it in-
fluenced directly the development of speech in other institutions; and
it illustrates the effect of a strong teacher and personality on the inde-
pendent status of speech instruction within any college. The continu-
ous tradition of speech training at Hamilton, extending to the academy
which preceded the founding of the college in 1812, was given aca-
demic status after 1841, in which year Henry Mandeville went to
Hamilton. An Historical Discourse by President Fisher of Hamilton
College, delivered in 1862, observes that "the Department of Elocution
and Rhetoric was organized under Dr. Mandeville, and has since been
made very efficient in the training of students. Before this, instruction
on these subjects was given by the President." 55 Of Mandeville, Presi-
dent Fisher recalls that he

... at once impressed himself on me as no common man. . . . He came to this
institution in 1841, and for eight years filled the chair of Elocution and
Rhetoric. He found the department unorganized. ... He set himself to work
to make it the power and give it the position to which its importance entitled
it. He wrote here Ms system of Elocution, basing it on the principles enun-
ciated by Walker, that the structure of the sentence controls its delivery-
die only true philosophical idea of a sound elocution. . . . He thus gave to
this department its original form and impulse.56

The vagaries of departmental organization in early days were often
determined by the interests and capabilities of particular professors.
By 1860 the Hamilton catalog showed a professor of Logic, Rhetoric
and Elocution, and Librarian, as one teaching post. By 1900, the depart-
ment had become one of Rhetoric and Elocution, although Elocution,
after the Mandeville system, was still the basic course of the depart-
ment. It is interesting that the college Register for 1902-1903 lists this

DEVELOPMENT OF DEPARTMENTS OF SPEECH 461

department first among the instructional divisions of the college, plac-
ing it before the department of Greek— a sort of eminence in listing
which may be unique among the colleges of that period. The Register
observes: "The work of this department has long made Hamilton emi-
nent in its attention to the art of personal expression, both in utterance
and in writing." The tradition has persisted. In 1947 Professor Marsh,
head of the present Department of Public Speaking, was able to observe
that "during its latest, as in its earliest days, Hamilton has required four
years of speech training." 57

It is not surprising to find a department with such continuity and tra-
dition influencing the development of speech instruction in other insti-
tutions. In the case of Hamilton, its graduates played the primary role
in the development of the department at Cornell University, where,
with the appointment of Mr. Brainard Gardner Smith to the chair of
oratory in 1887, the impress of a succession of Hamilton graduates was
begun. Smith was succeeded at Cornell by Professor Duncan Campbell
Lee, also a Hamilton graduate, and the succession to departmental
chairmanship of Professors J. A. Winans, and A. M. Drummond, in this
century, has continued the role of Hamilton men at Cornell.

There were other institutions at which early departmentalization of
speech instruction has been noted, and some of these may be listed
here, with no implication that the listing is exhaustive or final. Whit-
man College, in Washington, lists a department of Elocution in 1880,58
and a department of Oratory and Elocution was organized in 1884 at
De Pauw University, with a considerable offering under the direction
of Professor Carhart.59 Speech at De Pauw was associated with rhetoric
in 1886, was neglected largely from 1887-1892, reappeared as a sepa-
rate department in 1891, became a division of the English department
in 1937, but again became a separate department of speech.60 Boston
University opened a School of Oratory in 1873, which survived for
only four years. Earlham College had a department of Elocution in
1877-1878,61 Baylor University a School of Oratory in 1890,62 and note
has already been taken of the Department of Elocution at the Uni-
versity of Mississippi, established in 1868.

The separate department of Elocution and Oratory, established at
the University of Michigan in 1892 by Professor Trueblood, identifies
the earliest department to maintain continuous autonomous organiza-
tion for speech instruction in one of the great universities of the coun-
try.63 The School of Oratory at Ohio Wesleyan, established in 1894,
was also to maintain its separate administrative status; so did the School
of Oratory at the University of Southern California, which was estab-
lished in 1895.64 And although the present School of Speech at North-
western University was not linked to the arts college of that institution

462 HHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

until this century, it descends in direct line from the Cumnock School
of Oratory , which was established in 1878. 65

One marks the turbulent status of speech training in the transition to
departmental organization and the growth of course offerings in the
last decades of the nineteenth century. A more comprehensive over-
view of the development of departmental associations for speech in-
struction is given by the research conducted by T. E. Coulton, who
surveyed catalogs from a representative sample of American colleges
and universities distributed over the entire nation. His data were taken
from the examination of a catalog from each of the institutions within
a series of time units, usually ten-year spans, and is therefore sum-
marized as normative data from the existence of speech courses and
departmental organization within decades in question.66

TABLE 2

DEPARTMENTAL TITLES IN TRANSITION

1860-70 1870-80 1880-90 1890-1900 1900-10 1910-20 1920-30

No. Institutions

Examined . 97 97 111

116

118

No. dep'tal Headings

for Speech Work 22 29 53

140

158

Significant Titles:

English . 7 17 40

Public spk. .

*Public spk.

Speech

^Speech

Elocution

Oratory

Expression

Rhetoric . . 9 2

Rhet & speech 1

Eng. & speech .

Rhetoric & Eng. 3 4

Dramatic arts .

* Indicates the title as a subdivision of a larger department.

Coulton's data (Table 2) indicate both the rapid growth of curricular
speech instruction during the period, and also places the movement
for autonomous departments within the twentieth century. The data
indicate that the movement for autonomy developed rather more
slowly than would be indicated by other surveys. For example, in 1894
Chamberlain reported the results of his survey, begun in 1893, that
there were fifty-two schools answering his inquiry which had distinct
departments of elocution, and that in twenty-five of these, elocution

DEVELOPMENT OF DEPARTMENTS OF SPEECH 463

was taught in connection with no other study.67 Coulton shows only
two departments of elocution in 116 colleges examined for that decade.
Lyon's survey, reported in 1915, found departments of public speaking
in well over half of the thirty-six institutions answering his inquiry,68
but McLeod's survey in 1916 showed only twenty-eight out of sixty-six
institutions in which there were separate departments of English and
Public Speaking.69 Percentage-wise, both of these surveys give a more
advanced picture of autonomous departmentalization than the survey
by Weaver of the catalogs of 356 colleges and universities for the years
1929-1930, which reported only eighty-six of these institutions with sepa-
rate departments of speech.70 All of the surveys are subject to obvious
sampling errors, and the earlier ones made no normative claims, but it
is likely that Coulton's study and Weaver's study, more extensive than
the others, and attempting to sample the nation at large rather sys-
tematically, give a better picture of the status of the movement for
departmental autonomy than the smaller surveys.

There is reason to believe, however, that the trend toward depart-
mental autonomy for speech, clearly indicated by Coulton's study, has
continued. So has the tendency toward a revision of departmental
titles. Coulton indicates the appearance of "speech" as a departmental
title after 1920, although at least one department had used the title
prior to that time.71 This title seems to have been the product of auton-
omy for speech instruction, and the corresponding expansion of the
scope of speech; and it has achieved a sort of verbal triumph since 1920.
Doubtless the title is also loosely descriptive, like "English,"

A reasonably complete and recent indication of both the direction
taken in naming speech departments and the extent to which autonomy
has proceeded may be derived from an examination of the report of the
American Council on Education on American Universities and Colleges
in 1948.72 In examining this volume it was possible to gather data on
the departmental structure of 738 out of some 820 accredited American
colleges and universities. The following is a summary of the number of
independent departments of speech shown by this report, and a group-
ing of the titles used for these departments. Titles are grouped under a
name most popular in the classification indicated, although each title
would have a variety of specific forms (see Table 3).

There are few surprises in this tabulation. In general autonomous
departments have developed most extensively in the universities, and
least extensively in the teachers colleges and technological schools.
Speech has become the most popular departmental title, but one marks
the tendency toward the appearance of drama, both in conjunction with
speech, or as a separate department. One notes also the extent to which

464 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

TABLE 3

DISTKIBXJTION OF SPEECH DEPARTMENTS IN 738 COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES *

Teachers
Categories Universities LA. Colleges Colleges Schools Totals

Total Autonomous

Speech Depts.f 129 242 49 10 430

Total Without

Autonomous Speech 52 177 71 33 333

Departmental Designations

Speech .

143

256

Speech and drama . .

Drama

Public speaking ....

Radio

Speech, radio & drama .

Homiletics

English & speech

Communication , .

Rhetoric

* Data taken from American Colleges and Universities, ed. A. J. Braumbaugh, American Council on
Education (Manasha, Wis , 1948), pp. 142-985. „

f Departments listing both English, and speech in the title have been included in this number, ine
total also includes twenty-three schools with two departments and one with three.

public speaking has disappeared as a departmental title, and the
appearance of radio departments, of communications, and the variant
combinations of English and Speech.

It is possible to observe the various lines along which speech has
developed as the field gained autonomous status. Turning again to
Coulton*s survey for an indication of curricular trends, it is apparent
that the great expansion of course work in speech came after 1900. In
the period from 1860-1870 such courses as forensics, declamation, elo-
cution, oratory, logic, rhetoric, and extemporaneous speaking appear in
the offerings of the few departments giving identifiable work in speech.
The following decade showed as its major development the appearance
of courses in debate, and of courses entitled TEnglish" which were indi-
cated as giving instruction in speaking. From 1880-1890 courses giving
work in dramatic interpretation began to appear, such as those in the
reading of Shakespeare, and similar courses continued to increase in
number into the twentieth century. After 1890 there was an apparent
increase in debate instruction, and near the end of that decade courses
in public speaking put in their appearance. The real diversification of

DEVELOPMENT OF DEPABTMENTS OF SPEECH

465

the curriculum came, however, after 1920, and must be considered a
concomitant of departmental autonomy.

The following table summarizes data on course offerings from 1900-
1935. Data has been grouped into the emerging lines of the curriculum
represented by types of related course work. These groupings do not
appear in the original data given by Coulton. The categorization of
particular courses is to some extent arbitrary.

TABLE 4

CURKICULAR DEVELOPMENTS, 1900-1935*

(Figures indicate the number of semesters of instruction offered in 118 institutions
studied. )

N
Course

umber of Semesters of Instruction
in 118 Institutions

1900-

10 1910-20 1920-30

1930-35

Public Address:
Public speaking . 58
Debate ... . . 182
Argumentation . . x
Extemporaneous speech . x
Oratory . . 148

152 164
229 153
x 105
50 42
152 44
35 7
7 11
x 16

x 176
89 91
104 167
x 34

x 10
6 39
x 2

107 4
x 118
43 49
16 11

171
156
101
41
53
5
13
23

186
136
202
39

26
48
8f

4
115
50
11

Rhetoric ... .195
Parliamentary law x
Business speech . x
Drama:
Production . . x
Drama . .... 5C
Interpretation .... 37
Correction . . ... x
Basic Sciences:
Sciences x

Phonetics
Radio
Basic Courses:
Elocution
Basic courses
Voice . .
Gesture . .

.289
x

. . .. 58
32

* Thomas E. Coulton. "Trends in Speech Education in American Colleges," unpublished Ph.D dis-
sertation, N.Y.U., 1935, pp. 46-52.

t The big development in radio courses came after 1935. The U.S Office of Education reports sur-
veys of radio courses in Higher Education, Federal Security Agency (Washington, 1944), pp. 30-31.

In interpreting the data in the table, it is worth noting that after
1920 courses in oratory are seldom performance courses, and would be
grouped as rhetorical study in some institutions. Rhetoric courses also
change from the study of rhetoric as practical instruction in composi-
tion, to the study of the history and criticism of rhetoric. The category

466 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

of "basic courses" indicates the appearance of courses in fundamentals,
or principles of speech. Such basic courses, supplanting earlier courses
in elocution, constitute one of the significant curricular changes which
occurred concomitantly with the development of speech departments.
These data do not indicate the beginnings of course work in two
aspects of the developing speech curriculum: courses for teachers, and
graduate courses,

Courses for Teachers

The appearance of courses for teachers appears to have been rather
general in the decade 1910-1920 for six institutions examined.73 In
1913 a course in Oral Reading and Oral English was listed at Cornell
University, and was described as a "course for teachers/' In the same
year, Teachers College listed a course in the Teaching of Speech in the
bulletin of its School of Practical Arts. Iowa listed a teachers course
in its 1914 Bulletin and Michigan a course in Oral English, which
was described as one for teachers. Wisconsin was offering a major in
speech for high-school teachers in 1914-1915, and attention was being
given to the problems of the high-school dramatics coach in the inter-
pretation courses of the same period.74 These courses are all directed at
the high-school teacher, and seem to represent an early interest on the
part of speech departments in the status of speech education at the
secondary-school level.

There is evidence that such courses for teachers were not the first to
be offered in this country. Indiana University listed a course in History
of Elocutionary Methods in 1892, and a course in Teaching of Public
Speaking in 1907.75 A teachers course in Elocution was listed prior to
1910 at West Virginia University, as was a course in Methods of Teach-
ing Reading, for which credit in elocution was given, at the University
of Missouri.76

The Development of Graduate Study

The decade before 1910 saw seven M.A. degrees carried out under
"an adviser in a department of speech." Three of these were granted at
Iowa, in 1902, 1903, and 1904; three at Utah in 1906, 1907 and 1909;
and one at Ohio Wesleyan University in 1908. There were three grad-
uate degrees in speech given in 1918, but the real development of
graduate study came after 1920. 7T Wisconsin, which had had its
master's program approved in 1915, gave its first M.A. in 1920, and the
first Ph.D. degree to be given in the field of speech in 1922.78 Cornell,
which had begun its graduate instruction in 1916 was to award its first

DEVELOPMENT OF DEPARTMENTS OF SPEECH 467

M.A. in 1922, and its first Ph.D. in 1926, in which year Iowa also granted
its first Ph.D. degree. The first M.A. at Southern California was given
in 1924, and Teachers College granted two Ph.D. degrees in speech in
1928. By 1936, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Teachers
College of Columbia, Cornell, and Southern California had given 92
per cent of the graduate degrees awarded in speech to that date. By
1936, also, Stanford and Louisiana State offered graduate study in
speech, and had granted the Ph.D. degree.

Autonomy brought its own internal logic to the developments within
the field of speech. It saw the rapid expansion of the curricular offering
in speech, the development of new courses, the revival of neglected
types of study, the expedient reaching out for all types of course work
dealing with the act of speech. It saw the development of specializa-
tion within speech, the growth of graduate study, the appearance of
division within division. The field which took as its core the symbolic
processes of direct discourse found this concept elastic enough to
permit reaching into nearly all the major aspects of human learning.
Specialists in the field of public address sometimes developed an affinity
for the field of social studies, for the methodologies of historical re-
search, and for the discourse of the citizen. Specialists in correction
found an affinity with the natural and medical sciences, for the research
methodologies of the exact sciences, and pathological discourse. Special-
ists in the drama and interpretation found their affinity with the hu-
manities, and with the functions of literature and art in the modern
world. As Professor Simon has said, the teacher of speech moves in
many orbits.

Notes

1. U. S. Office of Education, Higher Education, Federal Security Agency
(Washington, 1944), p. 30.

2. American Colleges and Universities, ed. A. J. Braumbaugh, American Coun-
cil on Education (Manasha, Wis., 1948), pp. 58-59.

3. R. Freeman Butts, The College Charts Its Course (New York, 1939), p. 104.

4. Marvin T. Hemck, "The Departmentalization o£ Knowledge/' AA17P Bul-
letin, XXXVI (Autumn, 1950), 465.

5. Evarts B. Greene, "Departmental Administration in American Universities,"
Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the Association of American Universities,
XIII (Chicago, 1911), 17-27; Thomas E. Coulton, "Trends in Speech Educa-
tion in American Colleges/* unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University,
1935, p. 113.

6. Charles F. Thwing, A History of Higher Education in America (New York,
1906), pp. 300-311.

7. A personal account o£ the influence of German scholarship appears in Bliss
Perry, And Gladly Teach (Cambridge, 1935), pp. 88-114.

8. Thwing, pp. 320-322.

9. For a discussion of the founding of Cornell, see Thwing, p. 433.

10. One of the best statements of the philosophy of these new Universities is
found in the Inaugural Address of Charles Richard Van Hise, cited in Butts, p. 230.

468 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

11. Butts, p. 160.

12. Harold M. Jordan, "Rhetorical Education in American Colleges and Uni-
versities, 1850-1915," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University,
1952, p. 104. Jordan summarizes the shift in departmental designations as follows:
"(b) It was common practice to combine all rhetorical training under a single De-
partment of English after 1890. (c) Many colleges and universities divided the
subject-matter of Rhetoric into two departments designated as Departments of
English Language and Literature and Departments of Rhetoric and Oratory, dur-
ing much of the latter half of the nineteenth century, (d) Separate Departments of
Public Speaking commenced to appear about the turn of the century, which took
over much of the speech training before 1915."

13. See C. H. Woolberfs comment on this in his "The Organization of De-
partments of Speech Science in Universities," QJS, II (January, 1916), 64-77.

14. Stephen Potter, The Muse in Chains (London, 1937), pp. 107-114.

15. Warren Guthrie, "The Development of Rhetorical Theory in America," SM,
XV (1948), 63.

16. IbtiL, p. 69.

17. From notes on a discussion of this shift with Frank M. Rarig, Minneapolis,
1951.

18. Perry, pp. 72-82, 128, 135-136; 160.

19. Historical Catalogue of the University of Mississippi, 1849-1909 (Nash-
ville, 1910), pp. 44-48.

20. Thomas Hewett Waterman, Cornell University, A History ( New York, 1950 ) ,
II, 34-36.

21. This shift has been frequently noted. One account is given by Donald Hay-
worth, "The Development of the Training of Public Speakers in America," QJS,
XIV (November, 1928), 501.

22. "Report of the Standing Committee on Entrance Requirements," School
Review, XVI ( 1908 ) , 646-659.

23. F. B. Robinson, "Oral English as a College Entrance Requirement," Public
Speaking Review, I (1911), 2-7,

24. Cited by Donald Hayworth, "The Development of the Training of Public
Speakers in America," QJS, XIV (November, 1928), 495.

25. Thomas C. Trueblood, "A Chapter on the Organization of College Courses
in Public Speaking," QJS, XII (February, 1926), 1-11.

26. Coulton, pp. 47-48.

27. Mary Margaret Robb, Oral Interpretation of Literature in American Col-
leges and Universities (New York, 1941), pp. 142-143.

28. Charles H. Grandgent, "The Modem Languages," in Samuel Eliot Morison,
The Development of Harvard University, 1869-1929 (Cambridge, 1930), p. 76.

29. Charles H. Woolbert, "The Teaching of Speech as an Academic Discipline,"
QJS, IX (February, 1923), 9-10. Also Woolbert, "Elocution Redivivus," English
Journal, IV (1915), 179-180.

30. Historical Catalogue, pp. 44-48; 58-60.

3L A discussion of this struggle is given by C. A. Smith, "The Work of The
Modern Language Association of America," PMLA, XIV (1899), 240-246. See
also Grandgent, and Herbert Weir Smyth, "The Classics," in Morison, op. tit., p. 34.

32. This definition is from Kemp Malone, "English Linguistics and the Ph.D."
EJ (CoUege ed.), XVHI (1929), 314-315. For a more thorough exploration of
the "empire" of philology, see Albert S. Cook, The Higher Study of English (Cam-
bridge, 1906), pp. 3-33.

33. Clarence E« Lyon, "The English-Public Speaking Situation," QJS, I (April,
1915), 46.

34. J. M. O'Neill, "The Dividing Line Between Departments of English and
Public Speaking," PSR, II (1913), 231-238.

35. Note in EJ, IV (1915), 339.

36. J, M. O'Neill, "After Thirteen Years," QJS (April,, 1928), 242-253.

DEVELOPMENT OF DEPARTMENTS OF SPEECH 469

37. Lyon, op. cit., p. 45.

38. Charles H. Woolbert, "The Organization of Departments of Speech Science
in Universities," QJS, II (January, 1916), 64-77.

39. Coulton, p. 46.

40. Coulton, pp. 49-50.

41. Data on specific courses unless otherwise noted, is taken from the appropriate
catalog of the institution to which reference is made.

42. Robb, op. cit., pp. 75-104.

43. Coulton, p. 97.

44. Note on this in PSR, III (April, 1914), 248.

45. Herbert E. Rahe, "The History of Speech Education and Ten Indiana Col-
leges," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wisconsin, 1939, pp. 386, 410-411.

46. Rahe, p. 386. See also Helen Roach, "History of Speech Education at Colum-
bia College (1758-1900)," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia Teachers
CoUege, 1948, pp. 48, 136-137.

47. Rahe, p. 397.

48. Rahe, p. 386. See also Roach, p. 125.

49. A discussion of the rise of intercollegiate debating is given in a series of
three articles: E. R. Nichols, "A Historical Sketch of Inter-Collegiate Debating," I,
QJS, XXIII (April, 1937), 259-278; II, QJS, XXII (December, 1936), 591-602;
III, QJS, XXIII (April, 1937), 259-278. See also Coulton, pp. 49-50.

50. Trueblood, loc. cit.

51. Historical Catalogue, p. 60.

52. Ruth Helen Lathrop, "A History of Speech Education at Louisiana State
University, 1860-1929," unpublished M.A. thesis, Louisiana State, 1949, p. 141.

53. Rahe, p. 356.

54. James Gray, The University of Minnesota, 1851-1951 (Minneapolis, 1951),
p. 467.

55. Samuel Ware Fisher, "Historical Discourse," in A Memorial of the Semi-
centennial Celebration of the Founding of Hamilton College (Utica, 1862), p. 82.

56. Fisher, pp. 87-88.

57. Willard B. Marsh, "A Century and a Third of Speech Training at Hamilton
CoUege," QJS, XXXIII (February, 1947), 23-27.

58. Coulton, p. 116.

59. Rahe, op. cit., pp. 52-55.

60. Rahe, p. 82.

61. Rahe, p. 97.

62. Coulton, p. 116.

63. Trueblood, op. cit., p. 69.

64. Alice Moe, "The Changing Aspects of Speech Education in the United States
from 1636-1936," unpublished M.A. thesis, Marquette University, 1937, p. 128.

65. Northwestern University; A History, 1855-1905, ed. by A. H. Wilde (New
York, 1905), IV, pp. 339-345.

66. The two charts in this paper, which are based on Coulton's research, are
adapted from the data in his dissertation and do not directly reproduce any of the
specific tables in his study.

67. William B. Chamberlain, "Report of the Committee on Elocution in Col-
leges," Proceedings of the National Association of Elocutionists (1894), pp. 129-
137.

68. Lyon, op. cit., pp. 47-48.

69. Alice M. MacLeod, "Majors and Credits in Public Speaking," QJS, II (April,
1916), 149-152.

70. J. Clark Weaver, "A Survey of Speech Curricula," QJS, XVIII (November,
1932), 607-612.

71. J. P. Ryan, "The Department of Speech at Grinnell," QJS, III (July, 1917),
203-209.

72. American Colleges and Universities in 1948, op. cit.

470 RHETORIC., ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

73. Unless otherwise noted, data on specific courses is taken from the catalog
or register of six institutions: Cornell University, Northwestern University, Univer-
sities of Iowa, Michigan, Southern California and Wisconsin, and Teachers College
of Columbia University.

74. Gordon J, Klopf, "A History of Speech Training at the University of Wis-
consin, 1851-1941," unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Wisconsin, 1941, pp. 24-26.

75. Rahe, p. 394.

76. Coulton, pp. 130-131.

77. Franklin H. Knower, "An Index to Graduate Work in the Field of Speech,
1902-1934," SM, II (October, 1935), 1-49.

78. Klopf, p. 28.

Speech Education in Twentieth-
Century Public Schools

HALBERT E. GULLEY
HUGH F. SEABURY

During the early decades of the twentieth century, speech found its
place in the curriculum of the high school. Established first in extracur-
ricular debate and dramatics, speech training in various forms gradually
appeared in courses of study. The high school itself changed in these
years from an institution which served the college-bound few to a
center of educational activity which provided basic knowledge and
training to almost every youngster in almost every township of the
United States^ Speech education kept pace with this growth. At the
turn of the century it was available to the few in an occasional course,
and as extraclass activity it was largely restricted to the superior stu-
dent. By 1938, the-^approximate terminal date of this paper, it had
become at least a small part of almost every school in almost every state/
Some schools required a basic course and offered extensive electives.
Speech served every student in the classroom, the talented in special-
ized events, and the handicapped in the clinic. Indeed, it prospered in
any school which recognized subjects ^^in proportion to their relative im-
portance for useful and successful livingT^It found its' way also into
the elementary school.

George P. Baker in 1903, addressing the meeting of the National
Education Association, called attention to the thriving debate societies
in high schools, and deplored the scarcity of courses which alone could
give students sound training and guidance in such pursuits. Younger
teachers of English, he insisted, should "be required to give themselves
such preparation as shall enable them to set standards for their pupils
and to train them in right speaking and in proper delivery of their own
work." 2 Many of Professor Baker's "younger teachers" were to become
teachers of speech and their influence was to be felt across the
nation.

471

472 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Interscholastic Activities

By 1900, high-school debate societies were indeed thriving. In 1887,
four schools in the Boston area were holding interscholastic debates.3
The Lyceum Association of Wisconsin by 1895 had organized the first
state forensic contests.4 By 1902, high-school debate societies in Min-
nesota were sufficiently numerous for the state university to bring them
to the campus for a meeting.5 Iowa organized a High School Debating
League in 1906, 6 Oregon the next year, North Dakota in 1909, Texas
and Kansas in 1910, and Colorado in 1914. 7 By 1916, there was some
kind of state organization for interschool debates in every state west
of the Mississippi, and in ten states east of the river: Alabama, Georgia,
North Carolina, and Virginia in the South; Pennsylvania and New Jer-
sey in the East; and Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin in the Mid-
west.8

The numbers of schools and debaters participating in each state were
also impressive. In North Carolina, for example, schools in the league
increased from 90 in 1913 to 325 by 1916.D During the 1914-1915 school
year in Texas, 3,000 boys appeared in 2,096 debates before an aggregate
audience of 99,100 people.10 One director of debate estimated that the
twenty-eight state associations had sponsored 54,041 debaters in 23?~
663 debates before 2,602,745 persons in the period 1902-1916.11

Debate leagues prospered partially because interested teachers were
trying to compensate for inadequate speech training within the school.12
Some states compensated, also, by promoting activities other than de-
bate. Texas included declamation, emphasizing selections of high merit
and endeavoring to "checkmate the influence of the dramatic reader
and the traditional elocutionist." 13 As the expansion of interschool de-
bating continued, speaking events sponsored by the leagues became
even more diversified. By 1930, Virginia had contests in reading, public
speaking, and debate, while Wisconsin had added extempore speak-
ing, extempore reading, declamation, interpretative reading, and play
production.14 The Speech Bulletin of the National Association of Teach-
ers of Speech printed in 1931 a list of "known inter-school contests."
There were ninety-five different leagues and associations conducting
contests in debate, in humorous, serious, interpretative, and dramatic
reading, in extemporaneous speaking, oratory, and declamation, in one-
act plays, and acting.15 The list reveals that there were more contests
in the Midwest, West, and South than in the East, although some were
reported in Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New
York, and Pennsylvania.

Dramatics also came into the schools of the twentieth century as an
extracurricular activity. Nearly all schools presented some kind of ama-

SPEECH EDUCATION IN 20TH CENTUKY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 473

teur theatricals to the community.16 In 1915, the South Bend (Indiana)
High School established the first little theatre in the public schools.17
By 1931, eighteen states were holding interscholastic dramatic events.18
By this date, if we may accept Macgowan's observations, dramatic
activity within the school must have been fairly intensive:

A third of the 22,000 high schools of America are probably studying and ap-
plying production methods to a rather decent grade of play. . . ,19 Some hun-
dreds of thousands of young actors, designers, stage-hands, and managers are
producing plays for an audience that runs into the millions. They have every
sort of stage to work on, from auditorium platforms to plants so well equipped
that the Theater Guild's Repertory Company plays there in preference to
local halls or opera houses. In many places the students practice playwriting
and scene design as well as acting, and indulge in state-wide tournaments.20

Two national honor societies for high-school students helped to foster
enthusiasm for public speaking, debate, and dramatics. The National
Forensic League, founded in 1925, furnished an appropriate reward for
forensic achievement. In 1930, it had 289 chapters in schools of thirty-
four states and had sponsored 14,500 contests in debate, oratory, decla-
mation, and extempore speaking.21 With much this same spirit for the
advancement of speech training, the National Thespian Society began
in 1929 to encourage dramatic arts in the high schools.22 The National
University Extension Association also contributed to speech education
in this period by promoting interscholastic debate on a national level.23

Courses in Speech

During the first years of the century, then, speech education was
within the orbit of the secondary school. Teachers of speech also sought
to develop courses in the regular curriculum. James M. O'Neill had told
the first convention of the National Association of Academic Teachers
of Public Speaking in 1915 that "academic endeavor" must be their
goal: "Non-academic and extra-curricular triumphs and victories must
not be the most prized distinctions. The platform and the stage must
give way to the study and the classroom as the scenes of our best and
most important work and our richest and most enduring rewards/" 24
The way was not always easy, even though extracurricular training had
made favorable impressions on many administrators and influential citi-
zens.25 Indeed, the success of the Wisconsin debate association was
attributed in large measure "to the increasing realization on the part of
school principals and superintendents of the intrinsic value of the
forensic activities sponsored by the League." 26 Yet many administra-
tors regarded speech as <ca frill of education, not an essential," 2r which

474 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

could be acquired satisfactorily through extraclass experience. Gains in
curricular recognition were slow; they were nonetheless inexorable.

Courses in subjects which we today label "speech" were offered by an
occasional secondary school early in the century. As early as 1882, in
fact, three schools in Cincinnati had included Elocution in the regu-
lar English program.28 In 1903, the English syllabus for Greater New
York high schools provided classes in argumentation the fourth and
seventh semesters.29 As Professor Baker expressed it, "some schools . . .
yielded to the inevitable and made debating a part of their curri-
culum." 30 Such offerings were few and scattered.

During 1910-1920, speech gained wider acceptance. Oral Expression
was introduced as a course separate from English in Chicago high
schools about 1912. Within seven years this subject, stressing reading,
speaking, story-telling, technique of speech, and voice production, was
being offered in half of Chicago's secondary schools.31 Hunter College
High School adopted Oral English in 1914, with emphasis on vocal and
speech mechanics, pantomime, class discussion leading to informal
debate, and the speakers material, purpose, manner, and audience.32
In 1912, a Berkeley, California, high school initiated a Shakespeare
course which included student production of one play a year.33 Steele
High School of Dayton, Ohio, in 1916 organized a two-year course
called Dramatic Art; it dealt with characterization, casting, voice de-
velopment, simple impersonation, and history of the drama.34 There
were reports of oral work as a part of English classes in 1915,35 and in
1916 of public speaking classes at Northwestern Academy.36 The edi-
tor of the Quarterly Journal of Public Speaking could say in 1915;
"Many normal schools, the leading private schools, and most of the large
high schools have a definite part of their curricula in the hands of spe-
cial teachers of public speaking." 37

The need for speech training was pointed up during the period of the
first world war. In the words of Alma Bullowa:

No greater stimulus could have been given to the work than the vast amount

of public speaking that was being done the country round Everyone who

could speak in public did so, and those who couldn't tried to learn to do so,
not for self-gratification, but as a means of serving. Thus public speaking
became desirable, and good speaking an ideal to be achieved.38

Whether stimulated by war-time speaking, by the persistent efforts of
teachers, or by a combination of these and other factors, speech offer-
ings had greatly expanded by 1920. Textbook writers had contributed
by furnishing high-school materials. A bibliography of 1918 recorded
a book in public speaking written expressly for secondary schools, an-
other in Oral English for Secondary Schools, five books in public speak-

SPEECH EDUCATION IN 20TH CENTURY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 475

ing which could be adapted to high-school use, and seven of varying
suitability for debate and argumentation courses.39 A United States
Bureau of Education survey on North Central Association schools com-
mented, "it is doubtless contrary to general impression that nearly one-
third of the schools make definite offerings" in public speaking.40

Of accredited schools in Montana, 52 per cent; in Indiana, 51 per
cent; and in South Dakota, 50 per cent had some kind of course. Many
states, of course, had none, although there were classes in the schools
of Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Maine, Georgia,
Texas, Utah, and New York.41 Fifteen per cent of the 1032 schools in
the North Central Association granted one-half unit for speech, 11 per
cent a full unit, and 2.5 per cent two units.42 Speech teachers should
have been pleased that 30.3 per cent of the schools in this region in-
cluded public speaking in their curricula, "since the teaching of any
phase of Speech in the high schools is very recent indeed." 43 As Andrew
T. Weaver observed:

A decade ago it seemed doubtful whether the importance of training in
speech would ever be widely recognized. The situation is quite different to-
day. There has come a growing conviction among school men everywhere
that some sort of organized class work in Speech should be introduced into
the high school curriculum. . . . We stand on the threshold of a new day.44

The new day was hastened by action of the National Association of
Teachers of Speech. The Association appointed a special committee in
December, 1923, "to study the situation and to recommend courses and
procedures in speech training and public speaking for secondary
schools." 45 This committee, ably headed by A. M. Drummond, was a
successor to a Committee on High School Courses which in 1920 had
advocated the introduction of a one-year foundation course in speech,
wherever trained teachers were available, to be required in the sec-
ond or third year. Specialized electives might be offered in elementary
extempore speaking, debating, dramatics, and interpretative reading.46
The Drummond committee and its forerunner built upon the work of
an earlier National Joint Committee on English which had objected to
English curricula that "practically ignored oral composition and sub-
jects of expression drawn from the pupil's own experience." 47

The Drummond committee called attention to "numerous well estab-
lished high school courses," greater availability of teacher training in
speech, and the demand for more training in Oral English made by the
federal Bureau of Education and the National Council of Teachers of
English. It recommended more speech in elementary schools, more and
better speech clinics, more oral reading, and better teacher training.
Following up its predecessor's suggestions, it presented courses of study

476 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

for one-half to one unit of Speech Training or Public Speaking for the
second or third year, and electives for juniors and seniors in public
speaking, one-half to one unit; argument and debate, one-half or one
unit; oral interpretation of literature, one-half unit; and dramatics,
either oral interpretation or drama and production, one-half unit.48
Published as a book containing helpful articles by many teachers, as
well as its recommended study programs, the Drummond committee's
report was a milestone. It helped to standardize curricula, clarify the
planning of both speech and English teachers, and convince faculty
and administration of schools without speech training that their offer-
ings were incomplete. It continued to influence secondary-school speech
education years after it appeared.

The National Association in 1928 again appointed a Committee for
the Advancement of Speech Training in Secondary Schools, whose aims
were "the expansion of speech education in all secondary schools now
giving such training, and its introduction into those all too numerous
schools which at present fail to offer instruction in speech subjects."49
This committee published The Speech Bulletin as a supplement to the
Quarterly Journal of Speech from 1929 to 1932, supplying surveys of
the status of speech education and articles on developments in drama,
debate, and interschool contests.

By 1932, speech courses were being offered in some of the high
schools of at least thirty-three of the forty-eight states,50 and in some of
the other states where courses had not appeared, there were extracur-
ricular speech programs. The attitude of many state superintendents
toward speech at this time is partially revealed in a report by Darnmon.
In a questionnaire addressed to State Superintendents of Public Instruc-
tion, Dammon asked, "Do you feel that speech education is necessary
to the better education of secondary school students?" Fifteen of the
twenty-six who replied answered, "Yes"; five more responded affirma-
tively, with qualifications concerning the kind of speech education, and
six answered, "No." 51 As these responses suggest, speech training was
receiving more general approval in this period, and by the end of the
decade, it was established in many more schools and in most of the
states.

The area of the nation reporting the least speech training was New
England and the East. Included in the list of states where speech was
unreported in 1932 were Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Massachusetts, and Vermont.52 Replies to the Dammon question from
these states confirmed lack of classes devoted to speech training. Super-
intendent E. W. Butterfield, of Connecticut, thought there was "danger
when Speech Education is segregated as a branch in itself/' and the
Vermont reply was: "There is no significant work being done in this

SPEECH EDUCATION IN 20TH CENTURY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 477

field, and moreover, there is little probability of its development for a
period of years on account of the local limitations, scattered popula-
tion, small high schools with few teachers, limited finances/'53 By
1938, New York and New Jersey provided state courses of study in
speech, Pennsylvania schools were offering some classes, and Vermont
and Massachusetts were investigating the possibilities for extended pro-
grams. Reports from the Eastern states suggested that schools with few
courses or none were becoming more interested in speech training, but,
on the whole, the programs in this region were not as numerous as those
in the rest of the nation.54

The South made rapid gains in this period, despite the late growth
of its high schools,55 and the tendency to leave what was considered
specialized training in private or tutorial hands.56 A 1928 Bureau of
Education study on new courses in Southern schools listed the addition
of thirty-one courses in public speaking, seven in dramatics, two in Ex-
pression, and two in Oral English. Alabama schools had added three,
Florida six, Georgia three, Kentucky three, Mississippi one, North
Carolina five, Tennessee one, and Texas twenty.57 The phenomenal
showing in Texas, which had some 800 high schools participating in
interschool debate,58 suggests that a thriving extraclass program con-
tributed to curricular adoptions. During the next ten years, five of the
thirteen Southern states adopted courses of study in speech— Florida,
Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. A survey by Harley A.
Smith lists six others which included speech in English courses of
study: Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and
Virginia.59

Examination of a speech education survey in Oklahoma 60 shows
widespread interest in curricular speech. Of the 845 superintendents of
schools questioned, 468 responded. Three hundred and ninety-three, or
84 per cent, reported speech courses in their schools. In order of popu-
larity, they were: public speaking, dramatics, debate and parliamentary
practice, and voice training and interpretative reading. Six hundred and
ninety-two courses were given in these 468 schools, and administrators
expressed a desire to offer 632 additional ones in dramatics, debate,
voice training and interpretative reading, and public speaking. Three
hundred and fifty-six administrators reported extracurricular activities,
and 166 others said they would like to introduce speaking contests.
Superintendents of schools giving no speech wanted to add a funda-
mental course in public speaking. Oklahoma schools, accordingly,
seemed to recognize the values of speech training.

The Texas Department of Education revealed similar recognition of
the values in speech education by permitting all high schools in 1938
to add three complete years of speech. Speech I, Fundamentals, was

478 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

made a prerequisite to other courses, and electives included interpreta-
tion, dramatics, radio speech, public speaking, and debate.61

The South was not alone in promoting speech in these years; West-
ern states also were extending speech education. Arizona, Oregon, and
Washington published courses of study. Classes were provided in many
schools of California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada. Utah and
New Mexico stressed oral training in English courses, but were making
plans to revise their programs to include more work in speech.62

In the Midwest, too, speech education was widely recognized by
1938. Extent of programs in the central states is suggested by these
reports: 63

Illinois. The Illinois School Directory for 1936-1937 reveals 303 high school
teachers in the field of speech. Of this number 53 are classified in speech, 90
in public speaking, 140 in dramatics and 20 in debate. . . . Public Speaking,
debate, and dramatics have in most of the larger schools won a place in the
curriculum.

Missouri. The work of the Speech Association in Missouri, although ex-
tending over a period of only four years, has already achieved definite results
in focusing greater attention upon the problems of adequately training teach-
ers of English and Speech, of securing the proper emphasis upon speech train-
ing in the elementary curriculum and in the English curriculum of the junior
and senior high schools, and of rewriting the state course of study in speech.

Kansas. The State Superintendent of Public Instruction reports; I believe
that a large majority of high schools have some form of speech training. The
subject is usually designated as public speaking or speech. A unit of speech
training is approved in our program of studies. In a few schools two units
are taught. This subject is offered in addition to either three or four units
in English.

Nebraska. State Superintendent of Public Instruction: I would say that
fully 50% of our Nebraska high schools are stressing speech training and many
more are stressing it to some extent. We have a very fine high school debat-
ing league in Nebraska, and practically four-fifths of the schools in the state
emphasize declamatory work. So I feel that our schools rank fairly well in
the matter of speech training.

South Dakota. . . . there are 140 teachers of speech, 125 teaching speech
as a major subject, and 15 ... as a secondary subject. In the new English
course of study, a semester, English III, 1, which is fundamentals of speech,
is required of all accredited high schools.

Minnesota. A survey of speech education in public high schools of the
state last spring showed that 39 percent of the larger high schools and 22
percent of the smaller offered at least one course in the study of speech . . .
75 percent of the school principals expressed real dissatisfaction with their
speech programs. Most of these said they believed speech work sufficiently
valuable to substitute speech for another course now in the curriculum. About
75 percent of these school principals were willing to indicate that they be-
lieved a course in fundamentals of speech should be required of high school
students, and that as soon as possible, they would like to hire a teacher
especially prepared to do this work.

SPEECH EDUCATION IN 20TH CENTURY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 479

Wisconsin. Thirty-four percent of the pupils of the state receive some
speech training. The larger the high school, the greater the amount of speech
training available. . . . The elements of speech training most frequently listed
are gathering and organization of material, oral reading, extempore speaking,
dramatics, voice, and impromptu speaking. . . .

There were extensive offerings also in Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, North
Dakota, and Ohio.

Some idea of reasonably typical speech education programs in the
central states may be found in an examination of those developed in
Iowa. Well established as a curricular subject in many schools, speech
received special emphasis in Creston, Davenport, Elkader, Fort Dodge,
Iowa City, Ottumwa, and Sioux City. In addition, schools participated
in declamation, debate, play production, original oratory, extemporane-
ous speaking, and so forth, as members of the Iowa Declamatory Asso-
ciation, and the Iowa High School Forensic League; they took part in
the Iowa Play Production Festival, sponsored by the State University of
Iowa, and in other speech and drama tournaments and festivals, such
as the Invitational Tournament Festival at Drake University in Des
Moines.

Schools representative of the development of speech education in the
larger cities were those of Council Bluffs and Des Moines. Thomas
Jefferson High School, Council Bluffs, at first was content with extra-
class participation in forensics and dramatics. In September, 1928, it
inaugurated a class in debate as an elective, meeting five periods a
week each fall semester. A class in public speaking was scheduled each
spring semester. Beginning in September, 1931, a course in Speech
Improvement, required of all second-semester sophomores, was organ-
ized to meet five periods a week each semester. Dramatics was added
in January, 1935, meeting five periods a week for one semester. By
1936, some speech work was being done in freshman English classes.
Furthermore much emphasis was placed on discovery and preparation
of talented students for successful participation in competitive forensic
and dramatic activities. The apparent desire of the five speech teachers,
other teachers, and the administrators of the school was to organize a
speech program for all students.64 Thus speech training in Council
Bluffs was started.

The schools of Des Moines, by 1938, offered complete courses in
speech and dramatics and provided for extensive extracurricular activi-
ties. After a careful diagnosis of speech needs, teachers designed a pro-
gram of four courses. Speech I included classroom speaking and read-
ing of poetry and stories. The second course called for parliamentary
practice, panel discussion, short talks, story-telling, and speeches for
special occasions, Public discussion, open forum debate, and radio

480 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

speech were covered in Speech III, and in Speech IV, oral interpreta-
tion of poetry and stories, and oral reading of plays.65

As these reports from throughout the United States make clear, a
sufficient number of secondary schools had adopted courses by 1938 to
suggest that speech education had become a respectable component of
the high-school curriculum.

Speech in Elementary Schools

As Emma Grant Meader points out in her book, Teaching Speech in
the Elementary School,™ many new movements in American educa-
tion have had their beginnings in the lower grades and have moved
upward to high school and college. Speech education in the twentieth
century, however, was emphasized first in college departments, spread
gradually to secondary schools, and appeared even more slowly in the
elementary grades. The problem of deciding when speech training as
such has been and when it has not been incorporated in elementary
schools, of course, is considerably confused by terminology and empha-
sis. The early grades have not included subject matter labelled speech
until recently, although the teacher could never avoid informal "instruc-
tion" in the oral use of the language. In reciting aloud, story-telling,
reading lessons aloud, spelling-down, and the like, the child in the Eng-
lish class was of course "speaking/' Yet the apparent intent was to teach
reading and writing skills, not the skills of speaking. Teaching of speech
in the elementary school, with emphasis directly upon oral communica-
tion, was a later and a new development.

Two examples selected at random may suggest the incidental, by-
product nature of speech-in-English. A 1903 "Report on Courses of
Study in English for Public Schools," G7 said that every course examined
provided for "oral expression." By this was meant the reproduction of
stories told by the teacher, reading of literature aloud or reciting the
regular lessons, and narrating and reporting experience. The process
was called oral expression, apparently, because the teacher listened
and the student spoke. Outcomes which aided the child to express him-
self in speaking to others were incidental. Another curriculum study in
1916 spelled out the child's need for "clear, forceful, correct expression"
in communicating with others for a purpose, but subject matter sug-
gested to the teacher of English allowed only for "reading, writing,
spelling, composition, grammar, and literature." 68 A later summary
observed that in the elementary schools for many years the "written
side of language has been taught . . . oral reading has been stressed,
grammatical mistakes have been corrected, and in recent years creative
dramatics has been included, but the fundamental principles of speech,

SPEECH EDUCATION IN 20TH CENTURY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 481

as such, have not been taught." 60 Alma M. Bullowa in 1922 reported:
"Everywhere we are made to realize that ability to express thought in
oral form, both adequately and excellently, has been neglected in the
educational scheme speech training for normal children in the ele-
mentary schools [is still] incidental and occasional." 70

Teachers became increasingly aware that the skills of speaking could,
and should, be taught directly, especially after speech had found its
place in colleges and secondary schools. In 1927, Teachers College of
Columbia University established the "first class in direct speech educa-
tion for the elementary school." 71 This course dealt with "basic prin-
ciples underlying speech education . . . through a consideration of
voice, phonetics, story-telling, oral composition, oral reading, and
dramatics." 72 Encouraging also was the tendency in the 1930*s for
more elementary-school teachers to receive some speech training, so
that every classroom could contribute to development of good speech.73

Signs of progress, too, were the courses of study developed for the
elementary grades. Meader 74 cites examples in Michigan, New Jersey,
and Minnesota. Dayton ( Ohio ) schools by 1935 were stressing articula-
tion, pronunciation, and voice development; schools in Madison in-
cluded training in bodily action, voice training, conversation, and
dramatics.75 The Washington State Speech Association prepared "An
Integrated Course of Study in Speech" to be used "from the first grade
through the high school." It was accepted by the State Department of
Education in 1938.76

The kinds of learnings emphasized in this period are illustrated by a
suggested speech program designed by Irene Poole Davis: 77

Pre-school and Kindergarten

Expression through bodily activity, relaxation, control of breathing: rhyth-
mic games, dances, resting periods, pantomimic games.
Appreciation of sounds, ear training for sound discrimination, vocal inter-
pretations, accuracy in articulation of sounds: listening games, imitating
sounds, guessing games of sound meanings.

Co-ordinated expression for joy and delight, conversation, story-telling,
dramatization: dramatized rhymes, jingles, songs, sharing experiences,
repetitive stories told and played, spontaneous make-believe.
Grades 1, 2, 8

(Much the same objectives, more advanced activities.)
Grades 4, 5, 6

(Added:) Correct articulation, accepted pronunciation, vocabulary en-
richment, correction of speech disorders.

(Added under co-ordinated expression:) Oral reading (artistic sharing),
original speaking (talks, reports, announcements, etc.), group movement
(parliamentary activity in clubs, persuasion).

This type of training was not restricted to isolated schools in the
thirties. Although the emphasis varied with the availability of trained

482 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

teachers and administrative attitude, elementary-school curricula re-
flected the rapidly expanding concern with speech education. Gladys
L. Borchers observed in 1936: tc. . . today speech is a part of the daily
training in the nursery school, it has its place in the program of the
kindergarten, and it is an integral part of practically every revised
elementary school curriculum. , . /* 78

Another innovation of the twentieth century which centered in the
elementary school was the speech correction program. Educational
philosophy by 1900 admitted a responsibility to atypical children,79 and
by 1910 Chicago public schools had a system of speech correction in
operation. The Superintendent, responding to pressure from parents
whose "stammering" children were lagging behind their classmates,
brought in ten graduates of the department of expression, Chicago
Teachers' College, who had shown ability and had some training in
remedial speech to work with 1287 children listed by their teachers
as "stammerers." They travelled from school to school, helping chil-
dren wherever they were.80 Remedial programs were established by
city schools of New York 81 and Grand Rapids 82 in 1916, Cleveland,83
1918, and Madison,84 1923. In the next several years, acceptance of the
public school's responsibility for aiding the speech-handicapped child
became virtually universal.

Teacher Training

With the tremendous expansion of speech education during these
decades came a persistent and difficult problem: the need for more
teachers whose knowledge and professional preparation would enable
them to teach effectively in the speech class, the speech-in-English
classroom, and in extracurricular activities that demanded direct train-
ing in speech. Too often, extraclass activities and even courses were in
charge of persons who were not educated in the teaching of speech in
the same sense that instructors of history or mathematics were pre-
pared in their disciplines; occasionally they had not taken a course in
speech themselves! 85 Many earnest teachers of speech had attended
colleges or normal schools whose offerings in their specialty were
extremely limited. Throughout the period, accordingly, members of
the profession endeavored to secure better training for teachers and to
establish minimum standards for state certification of speech teachers.

Many colleges and universities, of course, had extensive departments
of speech early in the century. In 1915, thirty-one of fifty-seven colleges
questioned in one survey had separate departments of public speaking,
elocution, oratory, and so forth.86 By 1919, the University of Wisconsin
was advertising courses for teachers of high-school speech in the Quar-

SPEECH EDUCATION IN 20TH CENTURY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 483

terly Journal of Speech Education, and within two years both Wiscon-
sin and Iowa were granting the Ph.D. in speech.87 The normal schools,
on the other hand, were much slower to develop adequate training for
speech teachers. Surveys of these institutions in 1918 and 1922 showed
that they offered such courses as oral reading, play production, argu-
mentation, advanced public speaking, dramatic interpretation, and
applied drama and dramatic art; nevertheless they gave little or no
attention to the methods of teaching speech. The inadequacy of their
offerings as teacher training is suggested by the fact that 369 of the 379
courses offered in 115 schools were open to freshmen without prerequi-
site.88 f

Conditions had improved somewhat by 1930. A committee of the
National Association of Teachers of Speech concluded after a study of
teacher-training institutions:

The academic training of instructors has definitely improved since the survey
of 1922 [by Rousseau]; there has been a decrease in the number of institu-
tions offering work on a purely elective basis; one-half of the institutions
offering speech work follow a system of prerequisites for advanced courses;
in uniforhiity of nomenclature and standardization of approach there has been
unmistakable improvement.89

Much of this progress, and of the continuing gains which were to
follow, was due to the excellent work of the speech teachers' profes-
sional associations. The National Association of Academic Teachers of
Public Speaking (later the National Association of Teachers of Speech
and the Speech Association of America) called attention in the first
issue of its journal to the need for properly qualified teachers in the
field.90 Membership in NAATPS, made up largely of college instruc-
tors, was opened at once to secondary-school teachers. As early as
1920, an Association Committee on High School Courses was asking
that teachers of speech "be required to have the same general back-
ground" and the "special professional training required of those who
teach other subjects." 91 Again in 1929, the Association demonstrated
its concern with teachers' education and its constant attempt to contrib-
ute to a solution. The need for trained teachers was among the causes
for the appointment of a Committee for the Advancement of Speech
Training in Secondary Schools,92 which publicized the needs of high
schools in the period.

The state speech associations, too, worked diligently to secure mini-
mum certification requirements for teachers of speech in the public
schools. The obstacles encountered in this difficult undertaking are illus-
trated by the efforts of the Indiana Speech Association. About 1932, the
Association persuaded the State Board of Education to issue a "speech

484 KHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

teacher's license" for twenty-four hours credit in speech. It was possible
in Indiana, however, for a teacher certified in English to teach speech
if he had had three semester hours in any phase of speech. Naturally,
there were few students who worked for the license in speech; unhap-
pily, too, there were few schools in the state which could employ a full-
time speech teacher. The Indiana Speech Association therefore urged
that English teachers have twelve to fifteen hours of speech distributed
in perhaps three areas before being allowed to teach it. The licensing
requirement was changed in 1937, but still the English teacher needed
only four to six semester hours of "oral composition" to teach speech.93

The Indiana experience was typical. In Illinois at the same time, the
teacher of speech had to be qualified as a teacher of English and Tiave
special preparation in the subject of speech to the extent of six semester
hours of work." 94 The Missouri Speech Association by 1937 had suc-
ceeded only in bringing to the attention of the department of education
and the accrediting agencies "the need of teachers especially trained
in speech, and the need of speech training for all teachers." 95

Despite such obstacles to the preparation of teachers, the diligence of
the speech associations, national, regional, and state, was to be re-
warded with progress in winning teacher certification. Curricular offer-
ings of teacher-training agencies had improved through the years, and
the trend was to continue, As more colleges established courses in
speech, and as some began to require speech of all students,96 teachers
of all subjects in the schools were made more aware of the importance
of the student's speech. The circle was evident: as opportunity for ade-
quate training was increasingly available in colleges and universities
and as speech became more important in the public schools, better
teachers were demanded and obtained.

Professor Baker had suggested in 1903 that pupils should be trained
in 'right speaking." 97 The day he envisioned had not arrived by 1938,
but it was much nearer than it was in 1900. Speech education was es-
tablished from kindergarten to the doctorate. Secondary-school stu-
dents were enrolled in speech fundamentals, public speaking, argumen-
tation, radio speaking, oral interpretation, and dramatics courses in
every region of the country; they appeared in thousands of debates and
public speaking and dramatic performances. Many elementary-school
children were acquiring basic speech skills, and hundreds of the speech
handicapped were receiving the benefit of well-trained clinicians in
their own school building. Speech education, one of the oldest disci-
plines in the western world, was firmly re-established.

SPEECH EDUCATION IN 20TH CENTURY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 485

Notes

1. John M. Loughran, "Oral English in the Secondary Schools," Quarterly
Journal of Speech, XX (February, 1934), 72-80.

2. "The Teaching of Argumentative Discourse in High Schools," National
Education Association Journal of Proceedings and Addresses, XLII (1903), 460-
470.

3. Boston Latin School, Cambridge Latin School, Newton High School, and
Dorchester High School. A. N. Levin and H. B. Goodfriend, Harvard Debating
1892-1913, p. 6, quoted in David Potter, Debating in the Colonial Chartered Col-
leges (New York, 1944), p. 96.

4. The Speech Bulletin, Supplement to QJS, III (December, 1931), 25.

5. According to James Leonard Highsaw, this was the first such invitational
meeting at a university. "Interscholastic Debates in Relation to Political Opinion/'
Quarterly Journal of Public Speaking, II (October, 1916), 365-382.

6. SB, III (December, 1931), 18.

7. Ibid., II (December, 1930), 46-60.

8. Highsaw, op. cit.

9. Ibid.

10. Edwin DuBois Shurter, "State Organization for Contests in Public Speak-
ing/7 QJPS, I (April, 1915), 59-64.

11. Highsaw, op. cit.

12. Purpose of the Texas University Interscholastic League was "to foster in the
schools of Texas the study and practice of public speaking and debating as an aid
in the preparation for citizenship." Shurter, op. cit.

13. Ibid.

14. SB, II (December, 1930), 46-60.

15. Ibid., Ill (December, 1931), 14-25.

16. J. Milnor Dorey, "Public Speaking and Dramatics in High Schools," Educa-
tion, XXXIV (September, 1913), 31-38.

17. Wilhelmina G. Hedde, "A Brief History of High School Dramatics/' SB, II
(May, 1931), 2.

18. SB, II (May, 1931), 19-25.

19. Kenneth Macgowan, Drama in the High School (New York, 1929), p. 3.

20. Kenneth Macgowan, Footlights Across America Towards a National Theatre
(New York, 1929), p. 169.

21. Bruno E. Jacob, "Work of the National Forensic League/' SB, II (Decem-
ber, 1930), 18-21.

22. Karl F. Robinson, Teaching Speech in the Secondary School (New York,
1951), pp. 281-282.

23. Work of the NUEA was called "constructive." The first high-school debate
"which determined anything like a national championship" took place in 1928 when
Suffolk High School, Virginia champions, and Hartshorne High School, winners in
Oklahoma, met before the House of Representatives in Washington. This debate
led Professor Ted Beaird of the University of Oklahoma Extension Division to see
possibilities in a nation-wide debate tournament. He presented the idea to NUEA
and was named chairman of a committee to supervise the contest, which was later
taken over by the National Forensic League. Arthur E. Secord and Ruth H. Thomas,
"Speech in the Extracurriculum Program," Bulletin of the National Association
of Secondary School Principals, XXIX (November, 1945), 117-119.

24. QJPS, II (January, 1916), 52.

25. Extensive high-school debating on a compulsory education law had been "in
no small measure responsible" for the compulsory education law passed by the
Texas Legislature. Shurter, op. cit. The Wisconsin State Legislature passed a reso-
lution congratulating its successful high-school forensic association, and the Lieuten-
ant Governor wrote: "I know of no single educational development in the past

486 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

forty years that is doing more to make good citizens." SB, III (December, 1931),
50-51.

26. SB, II (December, 1930), 46-60.

27. This was a statement made by a Dean of a College of Liberal Arts, quoted
by W, Arthur Cable, "Speech, A Basic Training in the Educational System/' QJS,
XXI (November, 1935), 510.

28. The report available on this course was made in 1912, and then it had been
in existence "for more than thirty years. At the time of the report, students attended
one hour a week for four years ( other hours were devoted to literature and compo-
sition ) and were guided by "a regularly appointed teacher who has made a special
study of elocution in its highest sense." At Walnut Hills High School, they studied
voice physiology, articulation, breathing, poise of body, pause and emphasis, story-
telling, and oral reading. They interpreted poetry, reproduced scenes from plays,
and drilled on inflection, enunciation, vocal power, and facial expression. The fourth
year was devoted to oratory and public speaking, which included argumentation
and interpretation. The school had an extracurricular debating club open to junior
and senior boys and a dramatic club for senior girls. Laura E. Aldrich, "Elocution
in the Walnut Hills High School," Public Speaking Review, I (April, 1912), 242-
246.

29. Charles S. Hartwell, "The Teaching of Argumentative Discourse in High
Schools," NEAJPA, XLII ( 1903), 460-470.

30. Baker, op cit.

31. Report of the Committee on Oral Expression of the Chicago High School
Teachers Club, from Club 'News, April, 1919, quoted in QJSE, V (May, 1919),
301.

32. Alma M. Bullowa, "Speech Training in Hunter College High School,"
QJSE, VI (February, 1920), 24-32.

33. Macgowan, Drama in the High School, p. 5.

34. Grace H. Stivers, "A High School Course in Dramatic Arts," QJSE, IV
(October, 1918), 434-437.

35. R. M. Lyman, "Oral English in the High School," QJPS, I (October, 1915),
241-259.

36. Andrew T. Weaver, "The Interschool Forensic Contest," QJPS, II (April,
1916), 141-148.

37. J. M O'Neill, "The National Association," QJPS, I (April, 1915), 51.

38. Bullowa, op. cit.

39. Public Speaking for High Schools was written by Dwight E. Watkins and
Oral English for Secondary Schools by William P. Smith. Elmer H. Wilds, "Speech
Education in Secondary Schools— A Bibliography," QJSE, IV (March, 1918),
184-195.

40. Calvin O. Davis, "The Accredited Secondary Schools of the North Central
Association," U. S. Bureau of Education Bulletin, No. 45 (Washington, 1919),
p. 94.

41. Robert E. Williams, "A Survey of Speech Training in High Schools of the
United States with Recommendations for its Improvement.," QJSE, VIII (June,
1922), 224-255.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid.

44. "The Content of a High School Course in Speech," QJSE, VII (February,
1921), 6-12.

45. A. M. Drummond (ed.), A Course of Study in Speech Training and Public
Speakmg for Secondary Schools (New York, 1925), p. v.

46. QJSE, VII (February, 1921), 76-78.

47. Drummond, op. cit.

48. Ibid., pp. 6-9.

49. Rupert L. Cartright (sic), "Tomorrow's Bulletin," SB, I (November,
1929), 23.

SPEECH EDUCATION IN 20TH CENTURY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 487

50. Although the exact status of speech in each state is hard to determine from
the reports available, since much depends on the interpretation of words used to
describe "oral work" done in connection with English, etc., this figure seems rea-
sonably reliable and is based on careful study of the following sources: Clara
Krefting, "State Courses of Study in Speech," SB, III (May, 1932), 2-5,
Orville C. Miller, "State Courses of Study in Speech in the Central States," ibid.,
pp. 5-6; "Status of Speech Training," ibid., pp. 7-12; Joseph Roemer, "Secondary
Schools of the Southern Association/' U. S. Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 16
< Washington, 1928 ) ; George S. Counts, The Senior High School Curriculum ( Chi-
cago, 1926), p. 31.

51. Clarence Dammon, "Attitude of State Superintendents," SB, III (May,
1932), 6-7.

52. Krefting, Miller, et al, op. cit.

53. The reply from Massachusetts was "Yes," from New Hampshire and Rhode
Island, "non-committal." Dammon, op. cit.

54. Clara E. Kreiftmg, "The Status of Speech Training in the Secondary Schools
of the Western and Eastern States," QJS, XXIV (April, 1938), 248-257.

55. The high school in the United States as a whole was a recent development,
since in 1890 there were only 4,485 secondary schools, both public and pnvate
[Leonard V. Koos, Trends in American Secondary Education (Cambridge, Mass.,
1927), p. 3]. The Southern high school was even newer: "Recuperation from the
effects of the war between the States plus the mental set of the old South toward
tutorial and private education retarded for several decades the growth and devel-
opment of the modern high school in the Southern region. In fact the Southern high
school dates from about the beginning of the second decade of this century." In
1896 there were 13 and in 1925, 756 schools in the Association of Colleges and
Secondary Schools of the Southern States. Joseph Roemer, "Secondary Schools of
the Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools of the Southern States," U. S.
Bureau of Education Bulletin, No. 26 (Washington, 1927).

56. Attitude toward private and tutorial education and its influence on speech
education was reflected in responses to Clara Krefting's survey. Alabama reported
"A number of schools have arranged for pnvate teachers of expression to tram in
public speaking those pupils who desire to follow it." The Georgia reply said: "Most
courses in dramatics, debating and public speaking are paid for by parents of the
persons receiving the training." Clara E. Krefting, "State Courses of Study in
Speech," SB, III (May, 1932), 2-5.

57. Joseph Roemer, "Secondary Schools of the Southern Association," U. S.
Bureau of Education Bulletin, No. 16 (Washington, 1928).

58. There may have been somewhat fewer than 800 schools in the years before
1928, but a report for the school year of 1929-1930 said there were "over 800"
schools participating, SB, II (December, 1930), 58.

59. There was no report from Georgia, and that from North Carolina was not
specific. "The Status of Speech Training in the Secondary Schools of the South,"
QJS, XXIV (February, 1938), 95-101.

60. A Program of Speech Education for the Elementary and Secondary Schools
•and Junior Colleges of Oklahoma, Speech Survey Project S-44, Works Progress
Administration of Oklahoma (November, 1936).

61. "Teaching Speech in the Junior and Senior High Schools of Texas," Bulletin,
The Texas State Department of Education ( September, 1940 ) .

62. Clara E. Krefting, "The Status of Speech Training in the Secondary Schools
of the Western and Eastern States," QJS, XXIV (April, 1938), 248-257.

63. Clara E. Krefting, "The Status of Speech Training in the Secondary Schools
of the Central States," QJS, XXIII (December, 1937), 594-602.

64. This desire culminated in the appointment of a committee to study the
speech interests, needs, and abilities of students, and to suggest ways of develop-
ing student abilities. The result was to plan courses and experiences which would
meet the needs of four groups : ( 1 ) entering freshmen; ( 2 ) students with no spe-

488 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

cial interests and abilities who Bad no serious speech defects; (3) students with
serious speech defects; and (4) students with capacity and desire for specialized
speech activities. Hugh F. Seabury, "Working Methods and Materials for the
Diagnosis and Improvement of the Speech of Students in Thomas Jefferson High
School," unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University,
1938.

65. Earl S. Kalp, "A Summary of the Des Moines High School Speech Course
of Study/' QJS, XXIV (February, 1938), 90-95.

66. New York, 1928.

67. Mary C. Moore and Perley Home, "Report on Courses of Study in English
for Public Schools," School Review, XI (November, 1903), 746-776.

68. Mary D. Bradford, "Necessity of Changes in the Curriculum of the Upper
Elementary Grades, both in Subject Matter and Content," NEAJPA, LIV (1916),
407-411.

69. Dorothy E. Sonke, "Speech Teaching in the Elementary Grades," QJS, XXI
(November, 1935), 534-538.

70. "The Course of Study for Oral English in Hunter College High School,"
QJSE, VIII (November, 1922), 354-363.

71. Meader, op. cit., p. 20.

72. Ibid.

73. In Missouri, for example, there was an increase of approximately 200 per
cent in the number of classroom teachers talcing courses in speech from 1937 to
1939. R. P. Kroggel, "Missouri Public School Speech Education Program," QJS,
XXVI (April, 1940), 186-189.

74. Op. cit., pp. 21-25.

75. "Suggestive Courses of Study Now in Use," QJS, XXI (November, 1935),
547-549.

76. Clara E. Krefting, "The Status of Speech Training in the Secondary Schools
of the Western and Eastern States," QJS, XXIV (April, 1938), 253.

77. "A Speech Program for the Changing Elementary School Curriculum,"
QJS, XXII (October, 1936), 454-457.

78. "Co-ordination-Kindergarten through College," QJS, XXII (April, 1936),
246-249.

79. Paul Moore and Dorothy G. Kester, "Historical Notes on Speech Correction
in the Pre-Association Era," The Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, XVIII
(March, 1953), 48-53.

80. Ibid.

81. Source for the date is Moore and Kester, op. cit.

We should remark that speech training and speech correction in New York City
schools presented a special problem. The New York population was polyglot; many
pupils did not hear good American English consistently unless from their teachers.
All prospective teachers were required to pass an oral examination, an examination
which screened candidates not only for speech faults and defects, but also for
deviations from good American-English usage. Speech clinics were provided for
children with defective speech, and there were special classes for children who
came from homes where a foreign language was primarily spoken. In addition to
these special helps, there were classes to aid in the development and improvement
of "normal" speech,

82. Pauline B. Camp, "Speech Treatment in the Schools of Grand Rapids,"
QJSE, VII (April, 1921), 120-138.

83. H. M. Buckley, "How Speech Training is Conducted in the Cleveland Pub-
lic Schools," QJS, XXV (April, 1939), 200-203.

84. R. W. Bardwell, "How Speech Might Function in the Elementary School,"
QJS, XXV (April, 1939), 195-200.

85. A survey of speech in 123 Kansas high schools in 1931 showed that 100
schools offered training through extracurricular events; one in four of the teachers
directing these activities was a teacher of speech and only five teachers worked

SPEECH EDUCATION IN 20TH CENTURY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 489

only in speech. SB, II

, I (Apnl, 1915), 92.
87. QJSE, VII (November, 1921), 273 385

. , V (May

Education iQ ti

19309) lP6eiCh EdUCatl0n m Teacher-Train4 Institutions," ^ XVI (February,

S: ^.^

92. Cartright, op. cit.

-ng Situate," QJS, XXH

National Speech Organizations and
Speech Education

FRANK M. RARIG
HALBERT S. GREAVES

The late nineteenth century marked the beginning of organizations,
national in scope, which succeeded in bringing together persons who
sought to improve training in speech. By discussing their mutual prob-
lems, by looking critically at their aims and methods, these persons
helped to secure the recognition and establishment of programs of
speech education in the public schools and colleges. This essay is con-
cerned with the record of events through the 1930's. By the end of the
fourth decade of the twentieth century the principal organizations de-
voted to speech education seemed to have achieved stability and a con-
siderable degree of professional maturity.

The National Association of Elocutionists

The National Association of Elocutionists was founded in 1892; its
name was changed to the National Speech Arts Association in 1906; it
ceased functioning in 1917. During the twenty-five years of its exist-
ence, speech education was gradually finding a place in the curricula
of American high schools and colleges. Thus the life span of the Asso-
ciation and the pioneer period of speech education were nearly co-
terminous. To some extent the Association aided the development of
speech education; nevertheless, individual members of the Association
who were eminent teachers probably left as great an impact on speech
education as the Association per se.

Periodically between 1882 and 1892 letters and editorials appeared
in Werner's Magazine (at first called The Voice), urging elocutionists
to hold a national convention or form a national association. But an
organization was not achieved until 1892, when Hannibal A. Williams
called for a convention which was held in New York City the entire

490

NATIONAL SPEECH ORGANIZATIONS 491

week of June 27. Of approximately 2500 persons who were circularized,
373 attended. F. F. Mackay was elected president; Williams, vice-presi-
dent, George R. Phillips, secretary; and Thomas C, Trueblood, treas-
urer. Werners Magazine was named the official organ, and a constitu-
tion was adopted. A volume entitled Proceedings was published for this
and for each subsequent convention.1

Tne name National Association of Elocutionists was adopted, al-
though the word "elocutionists" met with heated opposition, for even
then it was falling into disrepute.2 Elocution was declining partly
because public tastes were changing, partly because an academic ap-
proach to speech was being demanded by teachers and students alike,
and partly because of doubtful practices of less skillful readers and
"entertainers."#Early in the history of the Association, educators were
reluctant to grant college credit for elocution, but opposition slowly
faded as speech education supplanted th^entertainment motive, and
as elocution broadened into speech arts.JElocution was largely enter-
tainment characterized by the recitation of literature, usually memo-
rized. The speech arts also embraced this type of performance, but
went teyond it to include oratory, debate, public speaking, and acting,

Year after year convention speakers sang the praises and lauded the
progress of elocution, yet decried the disfavor in which it was held by
much of the public and by educators. The speakers candidly blamed
entertainers who were guilty of a wide variety of objectionable pracj
tices including parlor recitation 3 and the "saying of pieces/' 4 or, asfK
Townsend Southwick wrote: "Any crank, any low comedian, any man
or woman gifted or cursed by nature with what is vulgarly termed an
'elastic mug/ any school-girl with a few lessons from any sort of teacher,
may step into our ranks and become at once a full-fledged elocutionist
. . " 5 In 1893, elocution was lambasted for tolerating "imitations of the
cries of animals ... the blowing of whistles, ringing of bells, whirring

of spinning wheels and other feats " 6 In 1895, the "convention

approved of statue-posing and musically accompanied recitations, but
disapproved of bird-notes as a part of elocution." 7 College men did
not have "any great amount of respect or care for elocutionary train-
ing," partly because they saw in it little but "the development of man-
nerisms in many of their pupils/"' 8

In 1899, Mr. Henry Gaines Haxvn censured certain objectionable
practices, including inadequate training of many teachers and readers
and the teaching of muscular development and grace of carriage. Pub-
lic speaking and oral interpretation, however, he praised highly.9 In
1904, as President, Mr. Hawn delivered an address full of "art anger,"
in which he denounced, among other things, "undignified advertise-
ments . , . absurd, pompous, flagrant and vulgar . . ," such as "None

492 BHETOKIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Better" "The Standard," "The Greatest Ever," and "The most success-
ful reader before the public." He decried overemphasis on "one form ot
the work, the 'saying of pieces/ We have made it seem that the art ot
elocution is simply the memorizing of selections, and getting up before
the unoffending public, and reciting at them and for them.

Reviewing progress in speech arts during the twenty years the Asso-
ciation had been active, President John P. Silvernail, in 1912, described
some conditions that had caused adverse criticism in the past and
sounded a strong note of optimism for the future:

The press started in by ridiculing us in our national association and in state
associations. We had the clapper of that "curfew bell" thrown at us; we wge
called stunt doers; we were called electrocutwrusts. . . . Well, long ago the
press ceased to ridicule us and the public to look askance at us and educators

t0 ml" SvS^fpeaVeful revolution, a bloodless revolution, has been
taking place. The lowest form of the art-that merely of entertaining by com-
ical recitations, is not now regarded as characteristic of our work.

Opinions like these, taken from addresses delivered at conventions
between 1892 and 1912, reflect sentiments that were expressed at every
convention. They reveal three predominant ideas: (1) elocutionary
entertainment was in vogue during much of the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries; (2) although there were numerous well-
trained, competent, and sensitive elocutionists with high literary stand-
ards, there were also a great many who were guilty of the objectionable
practices outlined above; and (3) standards for elocutionary perform-
ance had improved slowly but steadily.

Against the preceding reports of the unfavorable attitude of the
listening public toward unskillful elocution must be balanced a dis-
cussion of the progress made by elocutionists in getting their art
accepted by the public and by schools. Mr. Silvernail hints at this
progress in the quotation above. Indeed, gaining wider acceptance for
the speech arts in colleges and high schools was a paramount concern
of virtually every annual meeting of the Association.

In 1892, the convention discussed the relation of elocution to college
and university education. Two college teachers reported very low sal-
aries, two others high salaries. At Ohio Wesleyan, Robert Fulton, whose
fees for private lessons supplemented his salary, in a period of three
years earned by $400 more than twice as much as a regular professor.
The administration considered his services a good investment because
of the large number of students he brought to the school. At Michigan,
Trueblood was paid the same salary as other teachers, and his courses
were accredited with other subjects.12

Two years later, Franklin H. Sargent discussed "The Status of Elo-

NATIONAL SPEECH ORGANIZATIONS 493

cution in the United States." His report was based on studies he had
conducted in 1886 and 1893. Of the numerous statistics and many
details covered, the following are most pertinent here: forty-three
superintendents of public instruction replied to his questionnaires, and
of this number "fourteen were favorable and twenty-nine unfavorable"
toward the teaching of elocution, but of 162 colleges a ratio of four to
one favored instruction in elocution. Salaries were low. In the public
schools, for instance, they were lower by $500 than average salaries for
other public school teachers, "i.e., less than $1000." 13

Also in 1894, the Committee on Elocution in Colleges reported on the
results of 440 questionnaires sent out, of which 102 were returned.
Three conclusions of primary interest emerge from this report: (1)
Most elocutionary instruction of the day was largely unacademic,
"connected with oratorical or declamatory contests . . . associated with
some form of public rhetorical exercise; but only one . . . specified orig-
inal thought as an essential element." (2) The number of hours devoted
to elocutionary study was generally low, varying from 35 to 144 hours
per year. (3) "More work in our line has been established within the
past ten years than ever before, 34 institutions reporting establishment
within this later period, and only 9 prior to that." 14

Reports more favorable than those of earlier years were made in 1898.
Maud May Babcock stated that students at the University of Utah had
petitioned for more work in interpretation.15 Frederic Blanchard said
the future was "bright with promise" because of growing favorable
public sentiment; also, "Elocution is granted influence amounting to

three percent of the whole 1 have in rnind required elocution in

the college. Where it exists at all, it requires about sixty out of the
eighteen hundred or two thousand class-room hours in a college
course." 16

One of the most glowing and revealing addresses delivered at con-
ventions was that of President Thomas Trueblood in 1898. He reviewed
progress of the Association and of elocutionary work since 1878, and
attributed much of the growth in college speech training to mounting
interest in oratory and intercollegiate debating. In summary, he said:

1878 found three leading institutions in the East and four in the West with
limited courses in oratory in their curricula; 1898 sees but few institutions of
note that have not at least a year's work . . . and many of our High Schools
and Academies employing special teachers. 1878 witnessed the pioneers of
our art going from college to college, where Presidents would deign to listen
to them, and giving short courses to voluntary classes; 1898 sees these men
occupying chairs of oratory in colleges and universities and devoting all thek
time to the advancement of the art. 1878 witnessed faculties strenuously op-
posing the introduction of elocution; 1898 sees extended courses offered
which count with Greek, Latin and mathematics . . . 1878 saw schools of

494 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

oratory so few as to be numbered on the fingers of one hand; 1898 sees a
prosperous school in every leading city, and department schools in two great
universities.17

In view of the derogatory and pessimistic statements about elocution
as entertainment and as education, these optimistic observations by
Trueblood may seem somewhat paradoxical unless one remembers that
they were made by a pioneer speech educator who desired nothing
more than to see speech education become entrenched in college cur-
ricula. To him, in 1898, the establishment of speech departments in two
great universities was a great achievement.

The high standards o£ some pioneer speech educators were excel-
lently described by President Trueblood the following year, 1899, when
he emphasized that education in expression develops "in a high degree
the imagination, the literary faculty, the memory, the love of the
beautiful. . . /'

[People] are not opposed to the right kind of elocution nor do they object to
its teaching. Elocution is here and here to stay. It is entrenched in the high
school, college, and university. If people do not like our work we must seek
the cause, not in elocution but in ourselves. The uncultured will not stand
false pretense and the most cultured will welcome genuineness and manli-
ness. . . .

But in spite of Trueblood's high sentiments, the profession still had a
long way to go, for "there are still colleges and universities and many
high schools not yet supplied with teachers of expression. We must
reach these by making our work too useful to be dispensed with. . . ." 18

Robert Fulton, president in 1905, was as optimistic as Trueblood had
been in 1898 and 1899: "When we organized this Association thirteen
years ago, a college professorship was a rarity in our ranks. Today we
cannot supply the demand for instruction in the high schools and uni-
versities " 19 Ironically, Fulton, who had been a leader in the fight

to include the word "elocutionists" in the name of the organization, in
1905 led the fight to remove it. He was helped by several persons who
forcefully decried the shabby reputation elocution had acquired. True-
blood asked the Association to "get rid of that abominable name 'elo-
cutionists' that is down in the mud " 20 The name was changed to

the Association for the Advancement of the Speech Arts,21 and in 1906
to the National Speech Arts Association.22

Between 1905 and 1916, descriptions of "progress" were about the
same: the speech arts had taken great strides forward; public esteem
had increased tremendously; demand for teachers had never been so
widespread; the number of students in high schools, colleges, and pri-
vate schools had risen steadily. Nevertheless, the conventions recog-

NATIONAL SPEECH OBGANIZATIONS 495

nized that much still remained to be done, for the speech arts had not
yet acquired good standing with the faculties and administrations of
most colleges and universities; there had been little standardization of
subject matter, little uniformity of terminology, and but slight biblio-
graphical accomplishment; literary taste of public and readers alike
had not been elevated sufficiently; and membership in the Association
had not increased.23

In 1916, George C. Williams was president, and although member-
ship had dropped to 152 persons no address of any previous president
had exceeded that of Mr. Williams in optimism. He forecast a rosy
future for the speech arts and claimed that the Association had vir-
tually eliminated the professional chaos of the late nineteenth century,
the "multitude of pet theories, methods, short-cuts, or professional
secrets." More than any other factor it had "been responsible for the
remarkable development of public speaking in this country during the
last quarter century." 24

In 1916, Charles M. Holt was elected president and given power to
designate the time and place for the next convention. There is appar-
ently no record that such a meeting was held. Publication of Proceed-
ings ceased with the volume for 1916,25 and letters from several people
who were active in the profession in 1916 have brought no information
to indicate that a meeting was held in 1917.26 The organization of the
National Association of Academic Teachers of Public Speaking in 1914-
1915 somewhat hastened the death of the Speech Arts Association, for
the newer group attracted persons from the older association and
offered a program of greater vitality and pertinence for speech edu-
cators. To a considerable extent, the birth of the one and the death of
the other were parts of the same picture. Between 1892 and 1917 times
and tastes had changed; as people became more interested in speech
education they became less interested in elocutionary entertainment.
Yet the Speech Arts Association did exert some favorable influence on
the growth of speech education in America, for, as President Williams
said in 1916, it succeeded in evoking widespread interest in all phases
of speech education and it may have been the most influential single
agency in raising standards of teaching and of platform performance.
We are thus faced with the somewhat paradoxical conclusions that the
National Speech Arts Association helped to bring about the improved
conditions in speech education that made its own continued existence
virtually impossible. But the paradox becomes explicable when we
recall that it was an organization primarily for professional entertainers,
that interest in listening to elocutionary entertainment was waning, and
that many of the pioneer speech educators were also entertainers who
had no other national association to cater to their needs for fellowship,

496 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

interchange of ideas, and professional advancement until the National
Association of Academic Teachers of Public Speaking was founded.27

The National Association of Academic Teachers of
Public Speaking

That the Speech Arts Association itself recognized and participated
in the transition from elocution to public speaking may be demon-
strated further by noting that addresses on both practical and theoret-
ical phases of public speaking received considerable stress in its last
few convention programs. At its twenty-first convention in Minneap-
olis, Gaylord and Woolbert discussed the "science" of persuasion and
the principles of public speaking.28 H. B. Gislason spoke on "Debating
as a Preparation for Life." 2Q George L. Scherger's remarks point to the
transition from elocution to public speaking: the professional man's
"success or failure often depends on his ability to speak in public ....
His training gives him a message but does not prepare him to deliver it.
Let us acknowledge at once that mere elocutionary training of the tra-
ditional sort will not solve the problem." 30

Two significant events in 1910 led to the organization of what is now
known as the Speech Association of America and to the present broad
program of speech education, In April, teachers of public speaking in
colleges of Pennsylvania, Delaware,, Maryland, New Jersey and south-
ern New York met at Swarthmore College and formed the Public
Speaking Conference. Their announced purpose was to become ac-
quainted and to discuss common problems. To a second meeting in
New York, April, 1911, the teachers in northern New York were invited.
The members of this conference decided to publish "a periodical
devoted to the interests of public speaking . . . and appointed a com-
mittee with power to act." In 1911, they produced the first number of
The Public Speaking Review, declaring that the journal would be
national in scope and would publish essays on all phases of speech:

The departments of the Review will be declamation, oratory, extemporaneous
speaking, argumentation, acting drama, reading in schools, book reviews,
criticism of speakers, and news items. The territory which the Review will
represent is the entire country.31

At its fifth annual meeting, April 13 and 14, 1914, the Conference
changed its name from The Public Speaking Conference of New Eng-
land and North Atlantic States to The Eastern Public Speaking Con-
ference, and announced that the Review should cease to be the publi-
cation of one conference only, but should represent all conferences in
the United States.32

NATIONAL SPEECH ORGANIZATIONS 497

The second event of 1910 to foreshadow the founding of the SAA
was the birth of the National Council of Teachers of English. The Coun-
cil grew out of the work of a committee of the English Round Table,
Secondary Department, of the National Education Association, at its
meeting in Boston, July 1. The Table appointed a committee of school-
men "to secure, as soon as possible, the judgment of its constituency
upon the main question: 'Do the college-entrance requirements in Eng-
lish, as at present administered, foster the best kind of English work in
the high schools?'" 33 On November 5, 1911, Chairman Hosic sent out
the call for the first meeting to be held December 1 and 2, Chicago.
Purpose of the meeting was "to create a representative body, which
could reflect and render effective the will of the various local associa-
tions, and of individual teachers, and, by securing concert of action,
greatly improve the conditions surrounding English work." On Decem-
ber 2 organization of The National Council of Teachers of English
was effected. The first number of the English Journal is dated January,
1912.

Both of these movements were revolts. The English teachers rebelled
against the type of scholarship and teaching fostered by the Modern
Language Association, based largely on German requirements for the
doctorate. To the meeting of the English Round Table at San Francisco
July 12, 1911, Hosic presented Questions at Issue: "Should the children
of the many be prepared for life and life's occupations," or should all
be given the preparation of "the few for entrance to privately endowed
colleges?" Oral expression was neglected. "The English course as a
whole tended to formality, scholasticism, and over-maturity, and needed
to be vitalized, redirected, and definitely related to the life of the
present." 34

Teachers of public speaking, whose work was "definitely related to
the life of the present," found their teaching, wherever included in an
English department, subordinated to English and themselves judged
by traditional standards of scholarship irrelevant to what they were
doing. Their discontent began to brew in various conferences. On
December 27 and 28, 1912, twenty-two representatives of fourteen col-
leges in eight north-central states met at Northwestern University and
discussed the relation of teachers of public speaking to the English
Council, but reached no decision.35 Representatives of twenty colleges
comprising the Ohio College Association had somewhat earlier dis-
cussed the question, "Should our work be under the English Depart-
ment, a separate department, or a school of Oratory?" 36

The English Round Table had already taken action which was to
make an important contribution to separate national organization of
teachers of public speaking. Elmer W. Smith of Colgate University,

498 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Chairman of the joint committee of the Eastern Conference and the
Speech Arts Association, requested that "the N.E.A. Committee make
provision for oral expression as a definite division of its work. The
Round Table voted that this be done, and the Committee of which
Mr. Smith is Chairman will join forces with the Committee of the
Round Table," 37 This action created the Public Speaking Section of
NCTE, the first mechanism, national in scope, to bring together teachers
of public speaking, At the meeting of the Section in 1913, teachers took
the initial step towards the formation of a national organization inde-
pendent of NCTE.

The Eastern Conference, likewise, took action which pointed towards
an independent association. The members of the Conference, at their
fourth meeting at Yale University in March, 1913, adopted a resolution
which declared that instruction in public speaking should be separated
from departments of English. J. M. O'Neill of Dartmouth College
launched the argument for separation. Having examined "about sixty
college catalogues," he described what he had found, and declared,
"the situation in our work throughout the country is in the unorgan-
ized, chaotic state that I have represented to you here." J. A. Winans
gave practical reasons for separation: first, "Public speaking is made
secondary to English"; second, "many heads of English departments
will refuse to promote teachers of public speaking/' O'Neill and Fred-
erick B. Robinson prepared a declaration of independence which pro-
claimed that the principles and practices of public speaking were dif-
ferent from those of English, that students deserved public speaking
teachers who were trained specialists, and that departments of public
speaking should be entirely separate from departments of English.38

At the convention of the English Council, November 28, 1913, be-
tween fifty and seventy-five persons attended the meeting of the Public
Speaking Section. Thomas C. Trueblood presided over an extended dis-
cussion, and a committee was formed to find out whether teachers over
the country wanted an independent association.39 The committee con-
sisted of C. D. Hardy (Chairman), J. M. O'Neill (Secretary), and C. H.
Woolbert.

At the banquet of the English Council, O'Neill laid out the issues
dividing teachers of public speaking from departments of English. "The
issue splits," he said, "on the rock of standards of scholarship. The
German Ph.D. ideal is not for Public Speaking, which must have its

own standards of scholarship and teaching The only hope for sane,

sensible, academically respectable work in Public Speaking of any
kind . . . lies in the general deliverance of this work from English
Department control." 40

Winans commented: "O'Neill's speech at the banquet started a good

NATIONAL SPEECH ORGANIZATIONS 499

deal of thought on the future relations of teachers of public speaking to
teachers of English. Professor Clapp of Lake Forest is strong for union
but admits union is not for the immediate future, for he recognizes that
in most English departments today, public speaking is likely to be
assigned to underpaid men and treated with scant courtesy ." 41 Events
were moving toward culmination.

At the meeting of the English Council in Chicago the next year
Chairman Hardy reported to the Public Speaking Section the results of
the questionnaire his committee had sent out. Of 116 teachers who
replied, 113 favored and 3 opposed a national association. After a long
debate, when several strong supporters of a motion to organize had left
the meeting, the motion was tabled by a vote of 18 to 16, and the meet-
ing adjourned to the next day. Saturday afternoon, November 28, 1914,
seventeen survivors of the Friday debate met in the Auditorium Hotel,
and emerged as charter members of the National Association of Aca-
demic Teachers of Public Speaking. Thus the issue over separation
from English was settled. The founders had taken clear and positive
action. The desirability of their action was soon confirmed by Lyon's
report that teachers in twenty-seven state universities were almost
unanimously in favor of a separate department.42 The charter members
were:

I. M. Cochran Carleton College

Loren Gates Miami University

J. S. Gaylord Winona Normal

H. B. Gislason . University of Minnesota

H. B. Gough . DePauw University

Binney Gunnison . Lombard College

C. D. Hardy Northwestern University

J. L. Lardner . Northwestern University

G. N. Merry . University of Iowa

J. M. O'Neill . . University of Wisconsin

J. M, Phelps . University of Illinois

F. M. Rarig , . University of Minnesota
L. R. Sarett . . Northwestern University

B. C. Van Wye . . . . University of Cincinnati
J. A. Winans . Cornell University
I. L. Winter Harvard University

C. H. Woolbert University of Illinois 43

The decision to found an association for teachers of public speaking
reflected wide and deep experience. The founders were sensitive to
elocutionists and professional coaches of speaking who were not educa-
tionally oriented; hence, they were not welcomed into the fold at first,
as the word Academic in the Association's name pointedly indicated
and as made clear in the qualifications for membership in the first con-
stitution. Thirteen of the seventeen founders, moreover, had contributed

500 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

substantially to their profession— Winans as the most frequent contrib-
utor to the Review, member of its editorial board, and president of the
Eastern Conference in 1913-1914; O'Neill as secretary-treasurer of the
Conference during the same period, member of its editorial board, and
instigator to revolt against domination of public speaking by English
departments; Gough as associate editor of the Review and contributor
to its pages; A. L. Gates as associate editor and as vice-president of the
"Standardization Convention" of the Ohio Conference in 1912; Gates,
Gislason, Hardy, Lardner, Sarett, Merry and Winter as contributors to
the Review; Gaylord and Woolbert as authors of studies in the psy-
chology of speech.

The decisive action of the men who framed the first charter of the
Association led ultimately to the present program of speech education
in America. The founders offered a new focus for the relatively random
efforts of teachers and associations that had for twenty-five years or
more striven, with occasional success, to unify, to place on a solid
foundation, and to give academic stature to training in speech which
was something more than "elocution/' They were aiming at a balanced,
well-developed program of speech education in both the high school
and college. Deploring the abuses of elocution, they saw delivery, not
as vocal and gestural display, but as voice and action tied to the mean-
ing of ideas and giving effectiveness to thought. The principles of
delivery, indeed, were equally valid for the actor, the reader and
declaimer, and the public speaker. Discouraged by the attempts of
teachers of English to teach "composition" chiefly in terms of grammar
and style and to serve the ends of literary appreciation and writing,
the founders felt they had to revolt. They believed that a speech of any
kind was something more than a written theme or report repeated
orally; they understood a public speech as practical, systematic com-
munication whose ideas, organization, style, and presentation were a
product of the speaker, his subject, his audience and occasion. They
believed that public speaking, debate, and discussion were indispen-
sable to the operation and success of a political and economic society
founded on freedom of enterprise and freedom of debate. As teachers
they were convinced that their subject could be taught effectively in
the classroom, and that its principles and techniques could be steadily
illuminated and advanced through scholarly study and research.

The new Association at once recognized the need for an organ of
communication. O'Neill insisted that publication must coincide with
the first year of the Association's life. Following his initiative, the group
not only elected him its first president, but also, in recognition o£ his
specific plans for a journal, handed him the responsibility of establish-
ing the Quarterly Journal of Public Speaking. Without the official title

NATIONAL SPEECH ORGANIZATIONS 501

of editor, and with the assistance of Winans, he assembled and edited
the material for the three numbers of the volume of 1915.44 The format,
quality, and historical value of the contributions in this volume, the
balance and proportion of its contents are the best testimonial to his
industry, judgment, and foresight. Made official editor by action of the
first convention,45 he continued in that position for the next five years,
survived many adversities, and handed to his successor, Woolbert, an
established professional journal.

With the Journal provided for, the founders and early members of
the new Association attacked these problems: Could public speaking
be taught with English, under a label such as "Oral English"? Should
public speaking and English be within one department or in separate
departments? Around 1910-1912, most teachers of public speaking
thought they could accept the framework of both the English depart-
ment and the "Oral English" course. Elmer W. Smith of Colgate, chair-
man of NCTE's Oral English Committee, insisted that written and
spoken English be taught in the same course.46 Calvin Lewis of Ham-
ilton College opposed separation into specialized departments. All
teachers should teach English.47 Public speaking teachers joined with
English teachers in advocating tests of spoken English for college en-
trance and for programs of Oral English in high schools.

By 1914, teachers of public speaking by and large stood for autonomy
in courses and in department organization. Lyon's report accurately
reflected opinion in favor of departments distinct from English. Teach-
ers understood, also, that a public speech was not the essay and theme
of Oral English and that the spoken language did not always behave
according to the prescriptive rules of grammar and pronunciation set
forth in the Oral English classroom. After attending the third conven-
tion of NCTE, Winans asked the central question:

What is our work to be called in the future? Oratory? Public Speaking? Oral
English? the last might be made to cover the ground best, but what does it
really mean? Does it not seem to narrow our work to a matter of language?
Does it suggest a virile public speech? 48

A high-school teacher of Oral English during the same convention
explained that the aim is "to make class room English the English of
the street and the baseball field/7 and that the teacher proceeds by
correcting idioms, by removing slang, by enlarging the vocabulary,
correcting grammar and rhetorical structure in the sentence, the para-
graph, and the whole composition. Effective expression, he said, is to
be accomplished by drilling in distinct enunciation and correct pronun-
ciation, supplemented by much reading aloud, declamations, and oral
themes.49 Of such a program Winans drily commented, "The need of

502 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

arousing interest in literature was less emphasized than that of securing
elementary correctness." 50 In November, 1913, Ohio teachers of public
speaking concluded that "oral English should be done in the Depart-
ment of Public Speaking; indeed . . . [it] probably cannot be done
intelligently elsewhere." 51 The immediate effect of the new association
was to bring together persons convinced that public speech in all its
forms and manifestations was practical, virile discourse and that it
could and should be taught accordingly. Perhaps this conviction gave to
the new Association greater strength, identity, and solidity than any
other single belief.

The conviction that public speaking was something more than oral
English was undoubtedly nourished by the long and wide experience
with debate, oratory, and other speaking "contests" conducted largely
on an extracurricular basis in both schools and colleges. Teachers,
"coaches," and students alike well knew that the preparation and
delivery of speeches for real audiences (often very large audiences
indeed) went far beyond the average English teacher's preoccupation
with themes and reports, with the elements of "correct" style and pro-
nunciation. They knew, too, that intercollegiate speech-making dealt
not with English literature, but with live questions on public affairs.
From 1892 to 1914 the subject matter of orations and debates so directly
reflected the political, social, and reform movements of the same period
that an editorial in the Public Speaking Review raised the query:

It would be interesting to know what connection there is between oratory and
debate work of this sort (intercollegiate) and the various political reform
movements that are going on all over the country.52

The central conviction of the founders gave force and direction to
the main lines' of development in speech education for many years.
Through its conventions, its publications, and its committees, and
through its members who taught in scores of schools and colleges, the
Association worked to establish the curricular study of speech in Amer-
ican education. Learning to speak well—or at least, acceptably—in any
socially significant situation was regarded as an essential part of the
individual's formal education; it should therefore be learned systemat-
ically, under specially qualified teachers, and merit the academic
respect it had held for over two centuries under the name of "rhetoric."
Two main trends can be discerned: (1) the organization of courses,
including consideration of content and method, for both public schools
and colleges; and (2) the attempt to shape extracurricular "speech
contests" in ways that served educational goals, rather than competitive
ends merely.

Perhaps the beginning of concerted effort to regularize college

NATIONAL SPEECH ORGANIZATIONS 503

courses and their content was the "Standardization Convention" of the
Ohio Conference in 1912. Twenty-two teachers from eight north-central
states met twice, thoroughly canvassing their own courses, their pur-
poses, and procedures,53 To the NCTE convention in 1913, Fulton pre-
sented a college curriculum, with "Elocution: Man's Triune Nature"
heading a list of ten courses. Among the "minimum essentials" in order
of preference were Argumentation and Debate, Parliamentary Usage,
Oratory, Rhetorical Criticism, Oratorical Seminar, Literary Analysis
and Interpretation, and Shakespeare.54 Trueblood proposed his speech
program the next year; in 1916 Woolbert published his map of the field,
"Speech Science and the Arts," along with a prospectus of courses for
a department of speech.

The first complete and systematic syllabus for speech training in the
secondary schools appeared in 1925. 55 It was the work of the Associa-
tion's Committee for the Advancement of Speech Training in the Sec-
ondary Schools, led by A. M. Drummond. Published in book form the
same year, together with a number of articles setting forth principles
and points of view for all aspects of the speech program, the work
doubtless stimulated speech training in the high schools and encouraged
teacher preparation in the colleges.56 In the early 1930's, the same com-
mittee supplemented and extended its pioneer work by issuing a series
of special bulletins.57

As teachers of college courses in speech, members of the Association
could agree that their goal was a sound education in speech— an educa-
tion which offered the student both training in skills and techniques
and knowledge of the principles which provided the rationale of skill.
But about the character and content of specific courses, they argued
vigorously. Mention of a few of their problems will have to suffice here.
What, for example, should be the basic or "fundamentals" course in the
college program? Trueblood, like Fulton, believed that "A thorough
study of the principles of elocution should be the basis of all courses
in public speaking." 5S Somewhat earlier, at the Ohio Conference, H.
M. Tilroe argued for a foundation course in elocution, but met with
sharp disagreement59 Persons, like Winans, who were skeptical of too
much elocution wanted the basic course to concentrate on original,
extemporaneous speaking, with a little declamation mixe'd in for spe-
cial purposes.60 Thus was started the debate over the "first" course;
with ramifications, the debate has persisted to the present day.

As courses in public speaking multiplied, another question provoked
sharp discussion: How should the college teacher handle the relation-
ship between the substance or content of a speech, on the one hand, and
form and technique, on the other? Should his course deal solely or
primarily with processes and techniques? Should it incorporate a liberal

504 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

amount of reading and discussion in timely political and social problems
from which would be drawn the subjects and some of the "content" of
student speeches? These were some of the questions of the O'Neill-
Hunt-Sandford debate.61 The questions, at first centered on pedagogy
and method, ultimately involved the kind of preparation and back-
ground for the teacher of speech. How much specialization? How much
liberal (or general?) education?

In 1917, Woolbert published his article, "Conviction and Persua-
sion/' 02 It focused attention on the relationship between logical and
psychological modes of proof, and for the twentieth-century teacher it
helped to open up the kinds of contributions which the natural and
social sciences might offer to public speaking and to the whole field of
speech. On both theoretical and pedagogical grounds, Woolbert ques-
tioned the conventional distinctions between conviction and persua-
sion, as general ends of discourse, and argument and emotion, as means
to the ends. Teachers of argumentation courses, debate coaches, and
persons interested in the development of advanced courses in speech-
making recognized the implications for both the content and conduct of
their teaching. Mary Yost brought sociology to bear on argumenta-
tion.63 A. P. Stone, teacher and professional writer and speaker, abjured
the theories of Yost and Woolbert and stated the pragmatic position.64
RowelFs "Prolegomena to Argumentation/' published in four parts,
concluded that while the traditional view of argumentative theory and
principles is sound, the tradition should be "corrected and improved"
by relating it to the great variety of "argumentative situations/' to the
contributions of modern logic and psychology; and should be shaped
"not only to the student's search for skill and power but also to the
general aims of education/' 65 The problems thus raised have continued
to interest large numbers of teachers.

The early years of the Association were marked by more than an
interest in developing the academic study of speech. They were dis-
tinguished also by prolonged discussion over the values and methods of
extraclass speech activities, especially those activities which entailed
competition among schools and colleges. Although all "speech contests"
were under scrutiny, the focal point was the interschool and intercol-
legiate debate. Had winning the debate, had intensive coaching of a
few talented students, become so general a practice as to seriously
Mnder the realization of more comprehensive educational ends and
methods?

The modern teacher of speech is familiar with "over emphasis" in
athletics; he little realizes that many of the evils associated with highly
competitive athletics today were also associated with competitive de-
bate in the earlier 1900's. Few persons at first questioned the supreme

NATIONAL SPEECH ORGANIZATIONS 505

importance of winning; the critics directed their shafts at the methods
employed to insure victory. The first convention of NOTE noted "wide-
spread hostility to debating in both colleges and universities on the
grounds of dishonesty and plagiarism." 66 Lee Emerson Bassett ob-
served: "To guard the interests of the college in intercollegiate debating
and increase the prospect of winning, a system of professional coaching
has grown up, which tends to relegate the activity to a place among
intercollegiate sports." 6T Superintendent F. A. Welch of the Hampton
(Iowa) public schools deplored the training of a few students to the
neglect of the many, declaring that schools outside the state debate
league achieved a better educational product than the schools in it; he
announced unqualifiedly, "We want teachers, not coaches." 68 As the
controversy wore on, the critics sometimes gained notable converts.
James M. O'Neill, for example, was at first willing to defend inter-
collegiate debating as "a college sport, no more and no less . . . honesty
in coaching and competent judges, skilled in debate could qualify
debating as an intellectual sport purely as a student activity." 69 Twelve
years later, O'Neill could say:

Both for those who participate and those who listen, contests in debate should
be helpful toward higher standards, better ideals, greater ability in this field.
Their function is properly educational, and they should not be allowed to be
diverted from their really great educational end. When we neglect their
possibilities as educational agencies and prostitute them to mere advertising
and cheap "sporting" ends, we are committing an offense as great as any of
the outrages that characterized the worst days of athletic rivalry.70

The controversy over ends and means in debate continued from time
to time, generating changes aimed to make contests more of a genuine
enterprise in communication and education. Competitive debate prac-
tices were modified in various ways: use of the expert critic judge,
the judgeless debate, decision by the audience, the open-forum debate,
and the Oregon Plan. Both coaches and teachers in increasing numbers
could subscribe sincerely to the values of debate as expressed by a dis-
tinguished classical scholar, Charles Sears Baldwin:

... a college training broad enough to interpret and energize a wide range of
studies, to give zest to learning and mastery to the learners, and so to show
what the intellectual life of the college is actually worth in making men intel-
lectually efficient among their peers the sheer knowledge of public affairs

displayed is worthy of any platform; and it cannot be acquired without
methods of study that are of far wider use.71

Interscholastic debating made great strides when the National Uni-
versity Extension Association in 1928, through its committee on discus-
sion and debate materials, provided a mechanism through which the
representatives of the state debate leagues could meet annually for the

506 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

discussion of common problems, for the selection of the national debate
question, and for the annual publication of two volumes of authorita-
tive materials aimed to furnish students, at low cost, with a thorough
background and understanding of the facts and opinions essential to
intelligent discussion and debate of the nation-wide topic. (Paren-
thetically, it may be observed that speech contests were not securely
put within an educational frame of reference until 1951 when SAA
published "A Program of Speech Education.")72

The founders and leaders of the new association understood early
the need for scholarly research and the academic respectability which
surrounded it.73 Primarily teachers of elocution and public speaking,
members had received relatively little training in the discipline of the
scholar. The Association promptly setup a Committee on Research to en-
courage the study of public speaking as a "scholarly subject with a body
of verified knowledge and a professional tradition and ethics. . . " 74
The first editor of the Quarterly Journal announced that he would
give "the right of way over all other material to articles giving the
results of research which come to us through the chairman of the com-
mittee on research." 75 Although the editor's policy touched off a con-
troversy over the merits of research and of teaching as ways to academic
advancement and status,76 the Association steadily encouraged scholar-
ship. When the volume of research material had become too great for
the Quarterly Journal of Speech, Speech Monographs started publica-
tion in 1934 and endeavored to print all worthy articles which were the
products of historical, critical, and experimental study. Monographs
was made financially possible by inaugurating Sustaining Memberships
in the Association with annual dues of $10.

The importance of bibliography for both teaching and research was
recognized early. The first bibliography on speech education for sec-
ondary-school teachers appeared in the fourth year of the Quarterly
Journal of Speech Education; 77 it was soon followed by Blanton's
bibliography for the beginner in speech correction.78 Two years later
Baird published his selected bibliography of American Oratory,79 and
in 1929 appeared McGrew's pioneer bibliography on rhetoric and re-
lated subjects in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century England.80 In
1937, O'Neill offered a basic bibliography to graduate study in speech,81
and in the same year Ewbank prepared the first classified bibliography
on radio speaking and writing.82 The comprehensive Bibliography of
Speech Education was published by the H. W. Wilson Company in
1929 under the editorship of Thonssen and Fatherson.

Through the years the Association has shown remarkable growth.
In 1916 its regular members numbered 160 and the budget was slightly
over $1300; in 1949 its membership numbered over 5100 (including

NATIONAL SPEECH ORGANIZATIONS 507

1300 Sustaining Memberships) and its annual budget was $41,000.
Sixty persons attended the first convention in 1915; at the Chicago con-
vention in 1949 over 2100 registered. The programs of the convention
strikingly illustrate the development of manifold special interests
within the field of speech. The first two conventions provided for
no section meetings, the convention of 1950 had well over 100. As its
members developed diversified interests, the official name of the asso-
ciation underwent change. Starting out with the National Association
of Academic Teachers of Public Speaking, it soon dropped the adjec-
tive academic and welcomed to its membership any worthy private
teacher of public speaking. Later, the name became the National Asso-
ciation of Teachers of Speech; still later the Speech Association of
America.

American Academy of Speech Correction S3

Initially the Association attracted and made welcome all teachers
interested in established activities to which speech was central— persons
interested in dramatics, in the oral interpretation of literature, in voice
training, in phonetics and in remedial or corrective speech, as well as
persons concerned mainly with public speaking and debate. But within
ten years of its founding, the Association felt the impact of science and
specialization which World War I brought with it. Special interest
groups emerged from the parent organization. The two major ones
to assume permanent shape within the time span of this volume were
the American Academy of Speech Correction and the American Edu-
cational Theatre Association. (The history of the second group is
briefly sketched in another article in this volume. )

At the 1925 convention of the National Association of the Teachers
of Speech, Robert West proposed the following:

Be it Resolved that the Association favors the organizing, within its group,
of semi-autonomous daughter organizations having memberships limited by
the special arts and sciences represented by the Association.84

Although the Association took no action, West's resolution reflected trie
opinion of teachers and professional workers in speech correction that
they would welcome an organization which served their special inter-
ests. West, joined by Sara Stinchfield of Mt Holyoke College, met
informally with a group of speech correctionists "in the interests of a
new organization to include workers in the field of speech correction
who might best promote the interests of a national organization and
best represent the new movement." 85 With West as temporary chair-
man the group discussed the purpose and standards of membership,

508 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

and, among other things, suggested that the new society be allied with
NATS as an auxiliary part of that organization but with restricted
membership.86 The topics settled upon for discussion at their next
meeting indicate the immediate interests of the group: classification
and terminology in the field of speech correction, "research on success
and failure of stutterers/' foreign accent problems, phonetic mecha-
nisms of "careless speech/' case history and records, and bibliographies
in speech correction.87

By December, 1926, the American Academy of Speech Correction
was a fact. Its purposes, stated in the original constitution, remained
the same for many years:

To stimulate among educators, physicians and others of the general public
a deeper, more intelligent interest in problems of speech correction.
To raise as rapidly as possible existing standards of practice among workers
in the field of speech correction.

To secure public recognition of the practice of speech correction as an organ-
ized profession.

To furnish this new profession with responsible and authoritative leadership.
To make this leadership generally respected by our good work, i.e., by our
scholarly research work, publicity work and administrative skill.
To make membership in our organization a coveted recognition of merit and
in this way furnish workers in the field of speech correction with a powerful
incentive to greater achievements.88

Robert West was elected President; Lee Edward Travis, Vice-President;
Sara Stinchfield, Secretary; and Richard Borden, Treasurer.89

In the same December, NATS decided that it could encourage and
support any responsible group of members who wished to band together
for the advancement and study of their specialty. Its resolution to this
effect was worded as follows:

That the National Association put itself on record as being favorable toward
the inclusion and due recognition of groups or organizations having as their
purpose within the general field of speech or Public Speaking, the investiga-
tion, discussion and standardization of special or technical phases of our
work; but that such groups or organizations shall first submit for the approval
of the National Association a definite statement of their aims, policies and
basis for membership.80

The new organization, renaming itself the American Society for the
Study of Speech Disorders, was finally endorsed at the Cincinnati con-
vention of NATS December, 1927. The two organizations recognized,
as Robert West said, that "their purposes, requirements and organiza-
tional structures are so different that they complement each other rather
than compete." 91 A sizeable number of persons held membership in
both organizations and both groups continued to meet in joint annual
convention for many years.

NATIONAL SPEECH ORGANIZATIONS 509

As knowledge accumulated about the behavior o£ the speech-handi-
capped person and as both the public and educators became aware that
the child with a speech difficulty could be helped, the public schools
began to demand qualified teachers and therapists. Colleges and uni-
versities started special courses and professional curricula. The new
association devoted much of its attention to standards of professional
practice and to the number and content of courses designed to train the
correctionist. It insisted, moreover, upon a basic code of professional
practice, namely, a pledge to help the handicapped person to come as
close to normalcy as could be, and to abide by the standards of train-
ing his peers determine appropriate. It did much also to stimulate
research into all phenomena of speech and hearing and to related areas
of learning as well. Its official publication., the Journal of Speech Dis-
orders (now the Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders), first ap-
peared in 1936; its Monograph Supplements., reporting at length upon
significant research, is published irregularly. Now known as the Amer-
ican Speech and Hearing Association, its membership includes 2800
persons.92

Honor Societies

Honor societies were founded to confer distinction on students who
have shown unusual ability in public address.

Delta Sigma Rho

The idea of an honor society for the recognition of excellence in
intercollegiate debate and oratory occurred simultaneously to Henry
E. Gordon, of the University of Iowa, and to E. E. McDermott, of the
University of Minnesota. They enlisted Thomas C. Trueblood in the
enterprise, and two years later, the three men, together with five or six
others from midwest universities, met in Chicago on April 13, 1906, and
founded Delta Sigma Rho, the first of the honor societies. On McDer-
mott's insistence, participation in intercollegiate contests was made the
sole condition necessary for membership. This condition excluded the
founders.93

The first president was George T. Palmer of Northwestern; its first
secretary, Gustavus Loevinger of Minnesota. It now has chapters in 77
colleges and universities.94

The purpose of the fraternity is to encourage "sincere and effective
public speaking," and it grants the DSR key as an award of distinction
to speakers in contests arranged by colleges and universities. Today it
holds occasional national student congresses for the discussion of issues
of broad public policy but holds no contests. Each congress is organized

510 KHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

as a legislative assembly and formulates proposals for laws. Its official
organ is The Gavel

Tau Kappa Alpha

Tau Kappa Alpha, organized by Oswald Ryan while a student at
Butler University, April 13, 1908, "as an honorary society which would
in a way do for public speaking in American colleges what Phi Beta
Kappa does for scholarship," 95 now has 187 chapters in thirty-six states
which are arranged in seven Regions, each with its governor. At its
national conferences, the eleventh of which was held in March, 1951, it
stages discussions and debates, and to outstanding speakers awards the
Wachtel Plaques. Applications for membership are limited to candi-
dates in the upper 35 per cent of scholarship in their college class, after
two years of participation in intercollegiate debate and discussion or a
speakers' bureau. Special features are close co-operation with faculties;
provision for civic chapters on petition by alumni members; Annual
Speaker-of-the-Year Awards to honor public personages who, by their
"effective, responsible, and intelligent speech," foster these ideals of
TKA and make ''outstanding contributions to American and world
society." 96 Its publication is The Speaker.

Pi Kappa Delta

Pi Kappa Delta ("the art of persuasion beautiful and just")97 was
organized in 1912-1913 through the co-operation of John A. Shields of
Ottawa University, Edgar A. Vaughn of Kansas State College, and E. R.
Nichols of Ripon College. Instead of making the state the unit of organ-
ization, as had Tau Kappa Alpha in the beginning, the founders made
the whole nation its territory and divided into nine provinces under as
many governors. It has orders of debate, oratory, and also of instruc-
tion, so that each chapter may have the benefit of the counsel of teach-
ers. Another distinguishing feature is its award of degrees of merit in
the various orders: Fraternity for membership, Proficiency, Honor, Spe-
cial Distinction, and since 1936, the degree of Grand Distinction for
national tournament winners,98 In 1949 it had 129 chapters in 36 states.
Its organ is The Forensic, published since 1915.

Phi Rho Pi

Phi Rho Pi, the National Honorary Forensic Society for Junior Col-
leges, was founded in 1928 by Roland Shackson, coach of forensics at
Grand Rapids Junior College, Michigan. Its purpose:

NATIONAL SPEECH ORGANIZATIONS 511

To promote the interests of debating, oratory, extemporaneous speaking, and
other speech activities, in the junior colleges by affording a means of fellow-
ship and cooperation among them, and by rewarding their deserving candi-
dates with a badge of distinction, graduated accoiding to achievement. Phi
Rho Pi shall not be a secret society.

Its three classes of membership are Active, Graduate, and Honorary;
the three Orders of membership: debate, oratory, extemporaneous
speaking and public speaking. Its three degrees of achievement are
Fellowship, Honor and Highest Achievement." In 1950 the society had
67 chapters and was still growing. The programs of its inter-school.,
district-regional, and national meets include debate, radio, all forms
of forensics, declamation, oratory, poetry, Bible, and story-telling.100
In 1950 the executive council of SAA revised the organization and
procedure of its Committee on Intercollegiate Discussion and Debate
to provide a representative from each of the four co-operating forensic
fraternities— Delta Sigma Rho, Tau Kappa Alpha, Pi Kappa Delta, and
Phi Rho Pi— and one member to represent unaffiliated colleges. One
purpose was to enable these representatives to select a national ques-
tion for college debate and also topics for discussion. More significant
for the cause of speech education was a second purpose, namely, to
provide a meeting place for the evaluation of intercollegiate debate and
discussion standards, methods and materials. "The intention/7 so SAA
stated, "was to bring debate and discussion into coordination with
educational and ethical standards discussed in conferences of teachers
since 1910." 101

The National Forensic League

Organized as a "High School Honor Society'7 in 1925, the League has
its national tournaments held under the sponsorship of universities. It
holds extensive programs of debate, original oratory, extemporaneous
speaking, oratorical, dramatic, and humorous declamations, and radio
announcing. Its awards to student speakers are for honor, excellence,
and distinction. Its membership includes alumni and honorary mem-
bers, and numbers 60,000. The Rostrum, its official publication, has now
reached Volume VII. NFL has grown from 11 National Districts in
1925 to 25 Districts in 1950, and from 24 to 532 chapters in the same
period.

The League is outstanding among honor societies for the number
and variety of its awards. Besides awards to student speakers, it confers
its Diamond Key on deserving coaches, its Bronze Plaque on individual
chapters, the Distinguished Service Key for effective promotion of its
work, and its Leading Chapter Award each month to two chapters in

512 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

each District. Since 1936 the Tau Kappa Alpha Award has been given
for "year after year excellence in national speech tournaments."

To commemorate twenty-five years of service to the high-school
speech program, the League in 1950 published a handsome volume,
1925 NFL 1950 in which are chronicled "some of the achievements of
the League's members and chapters."

The last sixty years have seen the birth of national professional
groups dedicated to the advancement of speech education in the high
school, college, and university. By and large, these groups have in the
twentieth century tried to place speech training in a framework of
recognized educational aims and methods, seeking to secure for it
academic basis and status and removing it from the unpredictable in-
fluences of the nonacademic teacher and "coach" and from the circum-
scribed environment created by the tradition of study in English lan-
guage and literature.

Notes

1. "Origin and Preliminary Meetings of the First National Convention of
Public Readers and Teachers of Elocution and the National Association of Elocu-
tionists," Proceedings, I (1892), 138-146. Cf. "Report of Committee on Perma-
nent Organization/' Proceedings, I (1892), 101-106; and Edgar S. Werner,
"History of the National Association of Elocutionists," Werners Magazine, XVIII
(1896), 489-519.

2. Proceedings, I (1892), 103.

3. Henry Games Hawn, "Needed Reforms in Elocutionary Instruction," Pro-
ceedings, VIII (1899), 154-174, passim.

4. H. G. Hawn, President's Address, Proceedings, XIII (1904), 20-29,
especially 26-27.

5. Letter by F. Townsend Southwick to Edgar S, Werner, printed in Werners
Magazine, XVIII (1896), 516.

6. May Donnally Kelso, Proceedings, II (1893), 158.

7. Editorial, Werners Magazine, XVII (1895), 615.

8. Statement by H. W. Smith in a discussion of a report submitted by the
Committee on Colleges, Proceedings, IV (1895), 107.

9. "Needed Reforms...,*' Proceedings, VIII (1899), 154-174, especially
159-160.

10. Proceedings, XIII (1904), 20-29, especially 21 and 26.

11. President's Address, Proceedings, XXI (1912), 17.

12. William B. Chamberlain, "The Relation of Elocution to College and Uni-
versity Education," Proceedings, I (1892), 86-92; discussion printed on pp.
92-95, remarks by Fulton and Trueblood on p. 93.

13. Proceedings, III (1894), 149-152, passim.

, 14. W. B. Chamberlain, "Report of Committee on Elocution in Colleges," Pro-
ceedings, III (1894), 131.

15. Proceedings, VII (1898), 54.

16. "The Place of Elocution in the College Curriculum," Proceedings, VII
(1898), 61.

17. President's Address, Proceedings, VII (1898), 30-31.

18. President's Address, Proceedings, VIII (1899), 21.

NATIONAL SPEECH ORGANIZATIONS 513

19. President's Address, Proceedings, XIV (1905), 25.

20. Proceedings, XIV (1905), 248.

21. Proceedings, XIV (1905), 250. The discussion of the proposed change
in name will be found on pp. 230-250.

22. Proceedings, XV (1906), 11.

23. These themes may be found in almost any volume of Proceedings, particu-
larly in the addresses delivered by the various presidents. A particularly good elabo-
ration of most of the themes may be found in the address by President Adrian M.
Newens in 1910, Proceedings, XIX (1910), 11-22.

24. President's Address, Proceedings, XXV (1916), 12-16, passim.

25. Union List of Serials (New York, 1943), p. 1913.

26. Letters to the author from:

Lee Emerson Bassett, March 16, 1949; and November 21, 1951. (Professor
Emeritus, Stanford University)

James L. Lardner, February 3, 1949; and December 3, 1951. (Former Professor
of Speech, Northwestern University)

Lew Sarett, February 2, 1949, and November 8, 1951. (Professor of Speech,
Northwestern University)

Thomas C. Trueblood, February 20, 1949, and March 3, 1949.

Dwight E. Watkins, April 17, 1950. (Former Professor of Speech, University of
California)

James A. Winans, January 31, 1949; and November 27, 1951.

27. During the early part of this century the term "public speaking" was widely
used to designate the subject matter areas that would now be loosely included in
the expression "performance areas of speech."

28. See J. S. Gaylord's address in Public Speaking Review, II (October, 1912),
50-51. Woolbert's address was not published.

29. PSR, II (October, 1912), 40-42.

30. "Public Speaking for the Professional Man," PSR, IV (December, 1914),
97-103.

31. PSR, I (September, 1911), 1-2.

32. PSR, III (April, 1914), 2.

33. Reorganization of English in Secondary Schools, comp. James Fleming
Hosic (Government Printing Office, Washington, 1917), p. 18.

34. Reorganization of English in Secondary Schools, pp. 20-21.

35. PSR, II (February, 1913), 180-182.

36. PSR, I (March, 1912), 210-212.

37. "The National Education Association Conferences," EJ (September, 1912),
52-53; PSR, II (October, 1912), 52-53.

38. "The Dividing Line Between Departments of English and Public Speak-
ing," PSR, II (April, 1913), 228; 231-238.

39. "The National Association," QJS, I (April, 1915), 51-58.

40. "Public Speaking and English," PSR, III (January, 1914), 132-140.

41. "The Convention of the National Council of English Teachers at Chicago,"
PSR, III (December, 1913), 111.

42. C. E. Lyon, "The English-Public Speaking Situation," QJS, I (April, 1915),
44-50.

43. O'Neill, "The National Association," QJS, I (April, 1915), 51-58.

44. Letter from J. M. O'Neill, December 11, 1950.

45. H. S. Woodward, "Secretary's Record of the First Annual Convention,"
QJS, II (January, 1916), 87.

46. "Oral English as a College Entrance Requirement," PSR, I (October,
1911), 78-84.

47. "Oral English Again," PSR, I (January, 1912), 145-155.

48. "The Third Meeting of the NCTE in Chicago," PSR, III (December,
1913), 111.

514 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

49. B. E. Heagle, "Oral English in the High School," PSR, II (November,
1912), 84-85.

50. PSR, II (November, 1912), 95.

51. J. A. Winans, "The Convention of the National Council of English Teach-
ers at Chicago/' PSR, III (December, 1913), 108-112.

52. Editorial, PSR, II (October, 1912), 56.

53. H. R. Pierce, "Standardizing Public Speaking Courses," PSR, III (May,
1913), 15-18; Northwestern University Conference, PSR, II (February, 1913),
180-182.

54. "College Courses in Public Speaking," PSR, III (March, 1914), 205-209.

55. "Report of Syllabus Committee," QJS9 XI (April, 1925), 107-123.

56. A Course of Study in Speech Training and Public Speaking -for Secondary
Schools, comp. & ed. A. M. Drummond (New York, 1925), pp. 83-86, rev. by
Gladys Borchers, QJS, XII (February, 1926).

57. The Service Bulletin for Teachers of Speech, Supplement to Vol. XV, QJS
(1929); The Speech Bulletin, I, 2 (May, 1930); II, 1 (December, 1930), Debate,
II, 2 (May, 1931), Drama, III, 1 (December, 1931), Contests; IV, 2 (May, 1932),
Course of Study,

58. Thomas C. Trueblood, "College Courses in Public Speaking," QJS, I
(April, 1915), 260-265; see also "A Chapter on the Organization of College Courses
in Public Speaking," QJS, XII (February, 1926), 1-11

59. "The Place of Declamation m the College Curriculum," PSR, I (January,
1912), 136-138.

60. "The Practice at Cornell," PSR, I (November, 1911), 99-103; letter to
author, September 20, 1950, commenting on Winans* early course.

61. Benjamin P. DeWitt, "The Use of Current Topics in the Class-Room,"
PSR, III (May, 1913), 1-5; J. M. O'Neill, "Speech Content and Course Con-
tent m Public Speaking," QJS, IX (February, 1923), 25-52; W. P. Sandford,
"The Problem of Speech Content," QJS, VIII (November, 1922), 364-371;
Everett Lee Hunt, "Adding Substance to Form in Public Speaking Courses," QJS,

VIII (June, 1922), 256-265, Herbert A. Wichelns, "Our Hidden Aims," QJS,

IX (November, 1923), 315-324; J. M. O'Neill, "Foot Notes on Form and Con-
tent," QJS, X (April, 1924), 174-180.

62. QJS, III (July, 1917), 249-264; see also "The Place of Logic in a Sys-
tem of Persuasion," QJS, IV (January, 1918), 19-39.

63. "Argument from the Point-of-view of Sociology," QJS, III (April, 1917),
109-124.

64. "Novelties, Real and Fancied, m the Teaching of Argumentation," QJS,
IV (May, 1918), 247-262.

65. Edward Z Rowell, "Prolegomena to Argumentation," QJS, XVIII (Feb-
ruary, 1932), 1-13, (April, 1932), pp. 224-248, (November, 1932), pp. 585-
606 (Quotation, p. 606)

66. J. A. Winans, "The Convention of the NCTE at Chicago," PSR, I (March,
1912), 211-212.

67. Lee Emerson Bassett, "Intercollegiate Debates and Debating Leagues,"
PSR, II (January, 1913), 129-135.

68. F. A. Welch, "Our Debating and Oratorical Leagues," PSR, II (January,
1913), 138-143.

69. J. M, O'Neill, "Debating as a College Sport," PSR, II (February, 1913),
161-165.

70. As quoted by G. Rowland Collins, "Problems in Teaching Debate," OJS,
VII (June, 1921) ,268-269.

71. "Debate That Talks and Tells," extracts from Charles Sears Baldwin's
"Intercollegiate Debating," (Edinburgh Review, 1911), PSR, II (February, 1913),
191-193.

72. "A Program of Speech Education: Recommendations of the Contest Com-

NATIONAL SPEECH ORGANIZATIONS 515

mittee of the North Central Association with Respect to Speech as Submitted by
the Speech Association of America," QJS, XXXVII (October, 1951), 347-358.

In March, 1950, the Contest Committee of the North Central Association adopted
a resolution which recommended that mterscholastic contests be discontinued. This
recommendation by a widely influential accrediting agency whose Criteria, Policies,
and Standards lay down the conditions by which colleges and secondary schools
may receive, or be denied, academic rank aroused the officers of the SAA to posi-
tive action. The President appointed a Special Contest Committee which a year
later presented its report at a meeting of the Commission on Secondary Schools of
the NCA in Chicago The Commission adopted the report, and L. B. Fisher, Chair-
man of the Contest Committee, commended it to school authorities for optional con-
sideration and use as "a complete speech program for secondary schools presented
officially by the Speech Association of America."

The contents of the report make it clear that the SAA Committee considered its
responsibility to be that of correcting a distorted view of speech work brought
about by overemphasis and publicity given to speech contests m some communities,
and by a failure to publicize an authoritative statement of the whole program of
speech education which had developed since 1914. This document makes good both
deficiencies. It suggests procedures by which contests may be replaced with less
competitive programs, and all such activities kept in their proper relationship with
classroom instruction. The report goes farther and presents a comprehensive philoso-
phy of speech education and the relationship of each of its specialized divisions to
that philosophy.

In recent years, also, SAA, together with AETA, ASHA, and the Association for
Education by Radio, has made available to high-school principals information
about speech training and speech programs. Under the direction of special editorial
committees, the following volumes of the Bulletin of the National Association of
Secondary School Principals have appeared:

The Role of Speech in the Secondary School, XXIX (November, 1945), 9-160;
Speech Education for All American Youth., XXXII (January, 1948), 9-22; Dramatics
in the Secondary School, XXXII (December, 1949), 1-272; XXXIV (November,
1950), 7-139.

73. J. A. Winans, "The Need for Research," QJS, I (April, 1915), 17-23.

74. "Research in Public Speaking," QJS, I (April, 1915), 17-32; J. M.
O'Neill, "The Quarterly Journal and Research," ibid., pp. 84-85; Editorial, "On
Speaking Out," ibid, pp. 76-77, Wilbur Jones Kay, "Esprit de Corps," ibid.,
pp. 89-90,

75. Editorial, QJSy I (April, 1915), 84-85.

76. Everett Lee Hunt, "The Scientific Spirit in Public Speaking," QJS, 1
(July, 1915), 185-193; "General Specialists," QJS, II (July, 1916), 253-263;
C. H. Woolbert, "The Organization of Departments of Public Speaking in Universi-
ties," QJS, II (January, 1916), 64-77; "A Problem in Pragmatism," QJS, II (July,
1916), 264-274.

77. Harry Emerson Wilds, "Bibliography— Speech Education in Secondary
Schools," QJS, IV (January, 1918), 184-195

78. Smiley Blanton, "A Workable Bibliography for the Beginner in Speech
Correction," QJS, X (February, 1924), 37-41.

79. Albert Craig Baird, "A Selected Bibliography of American Oratory," QJS?
XII (November, 1926), 352-356.

80. J. Fred McGrew, "Bibliography of the Works on Speech Composition in
England During the 16th and 17th Centuries," QJS, XV (June, 1929), 381-412.

81. James M. O'Neill, "A Bibliographical Introduction to Graduate Work in
Speech," QJS, XIII (February, 1927), 39-48.

82. Henry L. Ewbank, "Classified Bibliography on Radio Speaking and Writ-
ing," QJSy XXIII (April, 1937), 230-238.

516 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Some additional bibliographies:

Alfred R. Root, "The Pitch Factors in Speech~A Survey," QJS, XVI (June,
1930) ,320-41.

Dayton D. McKean, "A Bibliography of Debating," QJS, XIX (April, 1933),
206-210.

Robert T. Oliver, "A Working Bibliography on Conversation/' QJS, XX (Novem-
ber, 1934), 524-535.

Irene Poole Davis, "Short Reference Lists for the Elementary Teacher's Book-
shelf," QJS, XXI (November, 1935), 549-553.

Lyman Spicer Judson, "After Dinner Speaking— A Bibliography/' QJS, XXIV
(April, 1938), 220-227.

Henry Lee Ewbank, "Bibliography of Periodical Literature on Debating and
Discussion/' QJS, XXIV (December, 1938), 634-641.

Edwin Duerr, "Book List for the Graduate Student in Theatre," QJS, XXVIII
(April, 1942), 169-173.

A Bibliography of Theatre and Drama, comp. and ed. by Committee on Re-
search of AETA5 John H. McDowell, Chairman and Editor, SM, XVI (November,
1949), 1-124.

Harry Caplan and Henry H. King, "Italian Treatises on Preaching, A Book-List,"
SM, XVI (September, 1949), 243-252; "Spanish Treatises on Preaching: A Book-
List/' SM, XVII (July, 1950), 161-171.

Abraham Tauber, "A Guide to the Literature on Speech Education," QJS, XX
(November, 1934), 507-524.

Giles Wilkeson Gray, "Research in the History of Speech Education/' QJS, XXXV
(April, 1949), 156-163.

83. Special thanks for the material in this section are due to Dorothy G. Kester
and Paul Moore.

An obscure and short-lived organization antedated AASC. The Quarterly Jour-
nal of Speech Education (May, 1918), carried this announcement:
Dr. W. B. Swift announces that The American Journal of Speech Dis-
orders and Correction, the official organ of the National Society for the
Study and Correction of Speech Disorders, will start publication in July,
1918.

"In February, 1920, the NEA Bulletin published the program for the convention
of the National Society for the Study and Correction of Speech Disorders which was
scheduled to meet that same month in Cleveland. The president, Walter B. Swift,
was then temporarily affiliated with the School of Education, Western Reserve Uni-
versity. No copies of the journal have been found, and there are no evidences of
meetings beyond 1921. Evidently the organization ceased operation in that year/*
[Moore and Kester, "Historical Notes on Speech Correction in the Pre- Association
Era/* Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, XVIII (March, 1953), 52.]

84. "Resolutions at the 1925 Convention of the National Association of Teach-
ers of Speech/' QJS, XII (February, 1926), 74.

85. From official minutes in the office of the Executive Secretary, ASHA.
Persons present at the meeting:

Mary A. Brownell, University of Wisconsin

Elizabeth Dickinson McDowell, Teachers College, Columbia University

Jane Dorsey, Smith College

Alvin C. Busse, New York University

Richard Borden, New York University

Robert West, University of Wisconsin

William J. Farma, New York University

C. K. Thomas, Cornell University

Jane Bliss Taylor, Vassar College

Thyrza Nichols, Bryn Mawr College

Sara M. Stinchfield, Mount Holyoke College

NATIONAL SPEECH ORGANIZATIONS 517

86. Official minutes.

87. Ibid.

88. Ibid.

89. By December, 1926, the following persons had qualified as charter mem-
bers:

Robert West Eudora Estabrook

Richard Borden Mary A. Brownell

Alvin Busse Sara Stinchfield

Lee E. Travis Dr. Smiley Blanton

Dr. Elmer L. Kenyon Mrs. Margaret Blanton

Thyrza Nichols Pauline Gamp

Frederic Brown Mrs. Lacey

Lavilla Ward C. K. Thomas

Mrs. Mable Gifford Samuel Robbins

Mrs. Elizabeth McDowell Jane Dorsey

Jane Taylor Sine Fladeland

Ruth Green

90. "Report of the Resolutions Committee," QJS, XIII (April, 1927), 187.

91. Dorothy G. Kester, "The Development of Speech Correction in Organiza-
tions and in Schools in the United States during the First Quarter of the Twentieth
Century," unpublished Ph D. dissertation, Northwestern, 1950, p. 135.

92. ASHA asserts officially that "the purposes of this organization shall be to
encourage basic scientific study of the processes of individual human speech and
hearing, promote investigation of speech and hearing disorders, and foster improve-
ment of therapeutic procedures with such disorders; to stimulate exchange of infor-
mation among persons thus engaged, and to disseminate such information." (By-
Laws, Art. II.)

Its members fall into two classes: (1) "Members," who are required to hold at
least Bachelor's degrees in the general area of the Association's interests; and (2)
"Associates," who are required to meet general academic requirements.

The Association carries on a program of clinical certification in Speech and in
Hearing. Certification is on two levels: "Basic and Advanced. A Basic Certificate
indicates that the holder thereof is capable of performing general clinical duties
under supervision and guidance, an Advanced Certificate indicates that he has
demonstrated ability to conduct clinics, train others in the arts and skills of the
profession and is a fully trained professional worker. A qualified Member may be
certified in both areas, Speech and Hearing, although joint certificates are not issued.
Such a Member may hold a Basic Certificate in one area and an Advanced Certifi-
cate in the other, or the levels may be the same."

93. "Delta Sigma Rho," PSR, I (September, 1911), 28-30; PSR, II (Feb-
ruary, 1913), 180; Egbert Ray Nichols, "A Historical Sketch of Intercollegiate
Debating, II," QJS, XXII (April, 1936), 591-602.

94. The Gavel, XXXV (May, 1953), inside cover and 74-77.

95. Oswald Ryan, "Tau Kappa Alpha," PSR, I (September, 1911), 30.

96. See The Constitution of Tau Kappa Alpha (mimeographed pamphlet, pp.
1-8), and Tau Kappa Alpha, National Honorary Fraternity (mimeographed pamph-
let, pp. 1-2).

97. The Constitution of Pi Kappa Delta (1949), Art. I.

98. See "The History of Pi Kappa Delta/' The Forensic, XXXIV (March,
1949), 69-77.

99. Constitution of Phi Rho Pi.

100. Letter from Glenn L. Jones, President of Phi Rho Pi in 1950.

101. The Rostrum, XVII (May, 1953), 2.

PART III

The Educational Theatre

Educational Dramatics

in Nineteenth-Century Colleges

JOHN L. CLARK

1698-1800

The circumstances which surrounded the beginnings of college dra-
matics in this country are uncertain, and the records are woefully incom-
plete. The first documented evidence of collegiate interest in the drama
is found in the cryptic entry in Harvard President Increase Mather's
diary for October 10, 1698: "examined the Scholars about the comedy,
etc." x William and Mary's famous "pastoral colloquy" of 1702, and a
performance in 1736 by "the young Gentlemen of the Colledge" of "the
tragedy of Cato," 2 are generally accepted as the first and second dra-
matic performances by college students in what is now the United
States, but the bare, unadorned newspaper announcements constitute
all that is known concerning them. The account in the diary of John
Blair, November 16, 1751, shows that William and Mary students had
not lost interest in the drama:

This evening Mr. Preston (professor of moral philosophy) , to prevent the
young gentlemen of the college from trying at a rehearsal in the dormitory
how they could act "Cato" privately among themselves, did himself act the
"Drunken Peasant/' but his tearing down the curtains is to me very sur-
prising.3

It may be surmised that some sort of continuity in college dramatics
existed in Virginia between 1736 and 1751, but lack of evidence pre-
vents certainty.

John Crowne, the English Restoration playwright who was "the first
Harvard man who succeeded in making a living by practising a recog-
nized form of literature," 4 attended Harvard College from 1657 to
1660, but it seems doubtful that his playwriting talent received any
encouragement while he was there. Cotton Mather's Suggestions on
Points to be Inquired Into Concerning Harvard College, submitted to

521

522 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

the Overseers in 1723, indicates the suspicion with which the theatre
was viewed:

Whether the scholars have not their studies filled with books which may
truly be called Satan s Library. Whether the books mostly read among them
are not plays, novels, empty and vicious pieces of poetry. . . .5

In calling plays "vicious," Cotton Mather was not, in the eyes of early
eighteenth-century Massachusetts, meddling in matters which did not
concern him. The mingling of the functions of state and church in New
England colonial government was taken for granted, and although edu-
cation was thought to be a function of the secular arm,6 Mather's posi-
tion as a minister of Boston automatically made him an Overseer of the
college.7 The early presidents of the New England colleges were chosen
from the ranks of eminent Protestant divines; the piety of the students
was as much a responsibility of their instructors as was their proficiency
in their studies.8 Cotton Mather's concern that the students might read
plays arose from his concern for the state of their souls, condemnation
of the stage was traditional in the history of Puritanism. This antagonism
was to affect college dramatics in America until after the Civil War.

It may well be that American Protestant opposition to the stage had
its antecedents in such controversies as that which took place at Oxford
in 1592 between William Gager, the Christ Church dramatist, and Dr.
John Rainolds of Queen's College.9 Rainolds attacked the performance
of Gager's plays on grounds which were to become familiar later in
both England and America. His main charges were that the Scriptures
( Deuteronomy xxii, 5) forbade the wearing of women's clothes by men;
that acting had been proscribed by civil law; that the performances
wasted hours for both participants and audience which could be put to
better use; and above all, plays were often presented on the Sabbath,
a most flagrant violation of divine law. Gager defended what had been
a tradition in the schools of England for three centuries past.10 After
denying that his amateurs were subject to the charges made against
professional actors, he asserted:

We contrarwise doe it to recreate owre selves, owre House, and the better
part of the Vniversitye, with some learned Poem or other; to practyse owre
owne style eyther in prose or verse; to be well acquantyed with Seneca or
Plautus . . . your goodwill I doe and ever will most gladly embrace, and your
judgment toe, in this cause so farr, as you wryte in the generall agaynst
Histriones* . . .l:L

Gager did not undertake to defend the professional stage, but he pled
for an exception in the case of the college plays.12 It was as such an
exception that dramatic performances appeared on the American Puri-
tan college campus. "The extent to which acting flourished in the days

DRAMATICS IN 10TH CENTURY COLLEGES 523

of our fathers is very remarkable," says a nineteenth-century college
historian.13 Officially, the Puritan colleges adopted the Rainolds posi-
tion; in practice it was often that of Gager which prevailed.

The Reverend John Witherspoon, sixth president of the College of
New Jersey (later Princeton), was clearly on the side of Rainolds.
While still in his native Scotland, he had written A Serious Enquiry
into the Nature and Effects of the Stage (1757). He found the
"Nature and Effects" to be most undesirable3 and he stated unequiv-
ocally, "We hope to abolish the theatre just as much as other vices." 14
When it is remembered that as late as 1824 Yale President Timothy
Dwight was to announce, in his Essay on the Stage, "An evil so great,
contagious, and extended, ought to meet universal opposition/' we are
not only surprised that acting "flourished," but that it was able to exist
at all!

Administrative disapproval of the drama does not always seem to
have been consistent, however, even in the eighteenth century. When
President Ezra Stiles of Yale visited the College of New Jersey in 1754,
New Jersey President Burr saw that he was entertained by "two young
gentlemen of the college [who] acted Tamerlane and Bajazet, &c." 15
On the other hand, an early mention of the drama is to be found in a
memorandum from the faculty judgments at Yale under date of Jan-
uary, 1756:

Whereas it appears that a play was acted at the house of William Lyon [a
tavern-keeper on State Street] on the evenings after the 2d> 6th, 7th and 8th
days of January instant, and that all the students (excepting some few) were
present at one or other of those times, and many of them continued there
until after nine of the clock, and had a large quantity of wine, and sundry-
people of the town were also present. And whereas this practise is of a very
pernicious nature, tending to corrupt the morals of this seminary of religion
and learning, and of mankind in general, and to the mispence of precious
time and money.16

The students who had been present were fined eight pence, and the
actors (who were all students) were fined three shillings each. Dart-
mouth's first definite code of college laws, formulated in 1782, took
notice of "public entertainments'7; since holding them "by students of
this college is detrimental to their morals . . . such entertainments are
prohibited under penalty to $5 fine to anyone who participates." 17 In
addition, no student was allowed to take a female part in any dramatic
entertainment.

We are indebted to the diary of Nathaniel Ames, a Harvard student
of the class of 1761, for an account of a comparatively intensive program
of undergraduate drama in the years 1758 and 1759. These selected
entries 18 will suffice:

524 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

1758, July 3, Cato a Play acted at Warrens Cham . . . July 6, Cato to per-
fection . . . Cato more perfect than before.

1759, April 20, Went to see the Drummer acted at Hows . . . April 21,
The Orphan acted ye 13th inst, . . . June 20, The Recruiting Officer acted by
ourselves then Public.

Four years after he graduated, Dr, Ames made an entry which indicates
that the college actors had gone too far:

1765, Nov. 20, Scholars punished at College for acting over the great and
last day in a very shocking manner, personating the Jude eterat Devil, etc.

This incident was to achieve international notoriety, and a letter from
a Bostonian in England (Dennys DeBerdt to Stephen Sayre, tentatively
dated 1766) shows the seriousness with which this offense was re-
garded:

Your mentioning Cambridge reminds me that I have concerning the schol-
ars there, they were so proph. as to act the Day of Judgment with a mock
Solemnity, pray inquire into the fact, for if it be true & the prophane wretches
not expelled there is nothing to be expected from that Colledge.19

Whether or not Ames' Diary reflects a typical picture of student the-
atrical activity, it is apparent that Cotton Mather's earlier fears were
justified. Ames tells us that in August of 1762 he went to Providence to
see the Douglass Company, which was performing plays in that city.20
It is evident that the determination of the college students to see and
even to produce plays had grown to such an extent that for the first
time it became necessary, in 1767, to take official notice in the laws of
Harvard of this pernicious habit:

Chap. IV Of Misdemeanours and criminal Offences XVIII, If any under-
graduate shall presume to be an actor in, a Spectator at, or any Ways con-
cerned in any Stage Plays, Interludes or Theatrical Entertainments in the
Town of Cambridge or elsewhere, he shall for the first Offence be degraded
— & for any repeated Offence shall be rusticated or expelled . . . Provided,
That this Law shall not prevent any Exhibitions of this kind from being per-
formed as Academical Exercises under the direction of the President and
Tutors,21

The restrictions and prohibitions listed above will serve to demon-
strate that the Gager-Rainolds controversy was not yet dead— at least in
American colleges. Witherspoon's Enquiry contained most of Rainolds'
objections, including the excessive time required by plays. Yale's judg-
ment against the play at Lyon's tavern repeats this complaint, although
the objection seems to be as much to the public nature of the perform-
ance, the lateness of the hour, and the 'large quantity of wine," as to
the play itself. Dartmouth's law against acting feminine roles is obvi-
ously related to the Scriptural edict concerning the wearing of women's

DRAMATICS IN 19TH CENTURY COLLEGES 525

clothing. The Harvard law is most interesting for the severity of the
penalty, and for the loophole which is left by the reservation in the
final sentence. The rather frequent performance of plays in eighteenth-
century colleges could have been possible only where a somewhat
greater tolerance to the drama existed than is evident at first glance.
The concept that the college drama contains positive educational val-
ues was thus given official college sanction in the colonial period, and
it is in the restricted area of Gager s stipulations concerning the aca-
demic drama that college theatricals began in America.

"To Be Well Acquantyed with Seneca or Tlautus"

There is evidence to show that the play as "academical exercise" had
some currency at eighteenth-century Harvard. The Faculty Records
for this period indicate the rigid control which was maintained over
such performances. The authorities were self-conscious about allowing
any kind of stage play, and performances for which official approval
was given were very carefully supervised:

1762, April 28, This day was the Public Examination, the Comtee of the
Overseers being present, after wch Oliver & Huntington were allov/d to
exhibit a Scene in Terrence before the Comtee they desiring it, but in Pri-
vate in the Library none being present but the Comtee, the President and
Tutrs.22

In non-Puritan Virginia, William and Mary could afford openly to en-
courage the use of the drama as an educational device, even to the point
of adapting student recreation to that end. The statutes of that college
as codified and published in 1738 contained this provision:

. . . And if there are any sort of Plays or Diversions in Use among them, which
are not to be found extant in any printed Books, let the Master compose and
dictate to his Scholars colloquies fit for such sorts of plays, that they may
learn at all Times to speak Latin in apt and proper Terms.23

The Harvard faculty, too, had taken it upon themselves by 1781 to
compose dramas for the furtherance of culture among the students. At
least the Faculty Records for November 16 of that year have this entry:
"Voted— That To-morrow evening, some Scenes of Busiris, a Tragedy
written by Dr. Young, be exhibited in the Chapel, as an academical
exercise, by a number of the Students." 24 The final relevant entry in
the Records would indicate that some thought was paid to the way in
which the actors were dressed: "December 7, 1781. Voted— That a num-
ber of the Junior Sophisters who are to exhibit, this evening a piece
from Pope's Illiad, be permitted to appear habited/' 25
These specific references to performances which were primarily

526 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

"academical" seem to be to exhibitions which were unusual in one way
or another. Other evidence, largely negative in nature (Yale censured
its students for a public performance, Dartmouth's law warned against
similar practices ) would seem to indicate that these isolated instances
represent a fairly common practice: making the study of the classics
more palatable by simple dramatic presentations. There were produc-
tions, however, which cannot be explained by any such pedagogical
motivation.

"To Recreate Owre Selves and the Vniversitye"

It is difficult to reconcile the common concept of the early New Eng-
land colleges as cold, cheerless temples of learning 26 with the frequent
excursions into the drama made by the Yale literary societies, Linonia
and Brothers in Unity. Fortunately, the fairly complete records of these
societies have been preserved, and offer a very interesting insight into
the college drama at Yale in the latter half of the eighteenth century.27
Yale's 'literary society" drama, along with isolated instances at other
institutions, seems to have been an extracurricular activity, quite in the
modern sense of the term. These societies (Linonia was known as the
"Honorable Fellowship Club" until 1772) were the most successful and
durable of the early societies at Yale. "They were seriously meant, by
those who founded them, to supply a kind of literary culture which the
curriculum did not furnish, and they well-fulfilled this office for three-
quarters of a century/' 2S They offered an opportunity for the students
to engage in debate, make speeches, and in general to confront an audi-
ence from the platform. To these forensic pursuits were soon added
humorous dialogues, light comedies, and farces, for an entry in the
records of the Honorable Fellowship Club dated February 6, 1767,
speaks of an "especial meeting" at which "a number of Freshmen were
admitted, a play and actors appointed for the anniversary." 29 The
dramatic presentations soon assumed a major role in the clubs' activi-
ties. Acting "not only enlivened their weekly gatherings, but it was the
main feature of the exhibitions in which the anniversary of the "Venera-
ble and Illustrious Society' was celebrated." 30

When college authorities objected to plays, "dialogues" were substi-
tuted at various places in the community. "The Court-house, the State-
house, the 'old auction room/ Moss's school room, and especially the
'Sandamanian Meeting house' were the scenes of their activity." S1 Some
of the plays were written by the members; however., the repertoire of
the early American professional acting companies was not neglected.
Thus, The Toy Shop, The Beaux' Stratagem, The West Indian, and

DRAMATICS IN 19TH CENTURY COLLEGES 527

Love Makes a Man are titles which were familiar to the audiences at
Yale and to those of the Hallam company as well. As was customary
with professional companies well into the nineteenth century, a double
bill was often presented. At the anniversary celebration of Linonia in
1780, the program consisted of a tragedy, Ximena, followed by a farce,
Love Makes a Man. The audiences on these occasions were often com-
posed not only of members of the societies, but also of townspeople,
and in 1782 interest had risen so high that spectators were admitted by
ticket. At the anniversary celebration of 1773, Linonia presented the
first part of the Lecture on Heads, a form of entertainment frequently
offered by Lewis Hallam and other early professional actors in Amer-
ica. This was followed after dinner (the meeting was held at the house
of Thomas Atwater) by a performance of The West Indian, and the
record of this day includes a description of the costumes. "The whole
received peculiar Beauty from the Officers appearing dressed in Regi-
mentals and the Actresses in full and elegant suits of Lady's apparel." 32
There is no doubt that these plays were produced at Yale with the
knowledge of the officers of the college. Occasionally, it is true, there
is a record of "authority of the college interfering," as in 1783, but for
the most part the programs of the literary societies seem to have been
unmolested. An entry in the diary of President Ezra Stiles for April 6,
1782, indicates a general tone of disapproval, but hardly one of censure:

There are two academic fraternities in college, the Linonian and the
Brothers in Unity . . . their entertainments and dramatic exhibitions have
become of notoriety no longer to be concealed. The general sense of the mem-
bers of both has been against carrying dramatical exhibitions to the greatest
length. Others have been zealous for the whole drama . . . ,33

Stiles' disapproval of this "notoriety" was eventually to result, in the
fall of 1789, in the prohibition of public exhibitions.34 The records of
the societies for the spring of 1790 mentioned the performance of a
comedy and a tragedy. These were apparently the last plays by the
societies.35

That literary societies were not peculiar to Yale is well known. They
were part of the college community at Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth,
and other colleges. Not at every institution did they put such empha-
sis on the drama; Princeton's American Whig and Cliosophic Societies,
for example, were famous for the excellence of their forensics, as were
the Peithesophian and Philoclean Societies at Rutgers. Out-and-out
dramatic clubs were not known at the colleges in this period, but the
literary societies which produced plays seem to have prepared the way
for such clubs. The Social Friends and the United Fraternity of Dart-

528 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

mouth, extended their dramatic activities into the nineteenth century,36
Nathaniel Ames' diary records plays at Harvard in the extracurricu-
lar tradition.37 Although one writer says, "Evidence of the performance
at the College of New Jersey of plays other than dialogues is lacking/' 38
Wertenbacker presents evidence which has been overlooked:

In 1782 the students presented the tragedy Ormisinda and Alonzo, in
which the "rich and elegant" costumes excited admiration and the acting
was so real "that it caused the tears to flow from many a compassionate mind
and made them feel for the characters in distress/' This was followed the
next year by the Rival Queens, or Alexander the Great, acted before a very
large and enthusiastic audience.39

Jared Sparks' Life of John Ledyard40 gives an amusing picture of the
American explorer acting in Cato while he was a student at Dartmouth
in 1772. Ledyard apparently brought "theatrical materials" with him
to college, including calico for curtains. There is evidence of a little-
known performance at Rutgers in an invitation somehow preserved
since 1783:

The students of Queen's College solicit the

company of Dr. Ryker and Lady at an exhibition

of a Tragedy on Wednesday 19th Instant at

6 O'Clock in the Evening.

Brunswick Admittance will be

7 March obtained by this card 41

1783

The College of Philadelphia (later the University of Pennsylvania)
numbered among its original trustees one William Plumstead, familiar
to students of the American drama as the owner of "Plumstead's Store/*
in which the pioneering Murray and Kean Company first played in
1749.42 This college, founded in 1755, was prompt in beginning its
dramatic activities. The students, "having from Time to Time , . . acted
Parts of our best dramatic Pieces/' 4S performed the Masque of Alfred
during the Christmas holidays of 1756-1757. "The first dramatic pro-
duction composed and acted by college students/' ^ this play was pro-
duced in the college building. The Masque of Alfred was an adaptation,
but Quinn calls it original because of the introduction of many new
scenes and the addition of more than two hundred original lines.45
Thomas Godfrey, the author of the first American tragedy to be pro-
duced on the professional stage (The Prince of Parthia), was a pupil
of the college provost, William Smith, who sponsored and directed the
Masque of Alfred. With friends of the drama in high places among the
officers of the college, it is not surprising that the College of Phila-
delphia occupies a prominent position in early college drama.

DRAMATICS IN 10TH CENTURY COLLEGES 529

"To Practyse Owre Owne Style'

The societies at Dartmouth (which may have been inspired by those
at Yale, according to one writer)46 appear to have depended almost
wholly upon their own members* resources for such plays as they pro-
duced. Otherwise, their activities followed much the same pattern as
the Yale societies. The meetings of the Social Friends (founded 1783),
and the United Fraternity (1786), were held weekly. The anniversary
celebrations at Dartmouth were soon observed with public perform-
ances at commencement. The first of these was held by the Fraternity
on the day before commencement in 1787, and consisted of an oration
and an original tragic dialogue. Competition was keen between the two
societies, and soon both were presenting dramatic programs on these
occasions. In 1790 "an original drama, entitled 'The French Revolu-
tion'" was produced, also by the United Fraternity. This play was
printed, and apparently was also produced at Windsor, Vermont.47
"An entertaining comedy" plus an oration, was the fare at commence-
ment in 1792, this time by the Social Friends. Although the commence-
ment celebrations were suspended in 1800, they were revived in 1811,
with an original play by a member of the society apparently still a
feature.48

Current affairs were watched with keen interest by college students
of the Revolutionary period. The successive titles of "dialogues" at
various commencement exercises probably reflect current opinion fairly
accurately. The College of Philadelphia paid its respects to England
at the commencement of 1761 with "An Exercise containing a Dialogue
and an Ode Sacred to the Memory of his late Gracious Majesty, George
II," and followed with a similar exercise in 1762 on the accession of
George III.49 The titles, unfortunately, are not specific for the period
of the Revolution; the 1775 and 1776 commencements each produced
"An Exercise Containing a Dialogue and Two Odes." These "Exercises"
were apparently printed,50 but I have been unable to see them. It
would be interesting to know what students at "Ben Franklin's College"
had to say, dramatically, on the eve of Howe's occupation of Phila-
delphia!

Freneau and Brackenridge wrote political dramatic exercises for
Princeton's commencements, as will be seen later. In the years im-
mediately following the Revolution, the societies at Yale produced
strongly patriotic plays which were written by members. The interest
which these societies took in their new government may be inferred
from some of the titles. Arnold's Conquest of the New London Fort
(1786), The Disturbances in Massachusetts (evidently Shay's Rebel-
lion, since the play was produced in 1787), and The Conspiracy of

530 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

Arnold (1789), are some of the provocative subjects. In the year of the
Constitutional Convention, 1787, the names of the characters of The
Disturbances in Massachusetts as listed in the records of The Brothers
of Unity reveal the political bias of at least one college playwright.
"True-heart and Manly" are described as "Gentlemen in favour of the
Constitution," while "Puff, Wronghead, Obstinate, Sneak, Sulky and
Underbrush," are the names given to the anti-federalists.51

The College of New Jersey had a young tradition of commencement
dialogues which had begun in 1760 with an Ode to Peace. The com-
mencement of 1762 featured The Military Glory of Great Britain, of
which the Pennsylvania Gazette for October 21, 1762, had this to say:
"... a Poetical Entertainment given by the candidates for Bachelor's
degree, interspersed with choruses of Music, which with the whole per-
formance of the day, afforded universal satisfaction to a polite and
crowded auditory."52 In 1771 Hugh Brackenridge and Philip Freneau,
well-known literary figures of the Revolutionary period, collaborated
on a commencement dialogue which was entitled The Rising Glory of
America.

College playwrights were found by no means only in the student
body. Provost William Smith and "Dr. Young" of Harvard have already
been mentioned. John Smith, Professor of Learned Languages at Dart-
mouth, wrote dialogues which were apparently presented at the com-
mencements of 1779 and 1781. These dialogues, entitled A Dialogue
Between an Englishman and an Indian, and A Little T eatable Chitchat,
alamode, seem to be fairly typical of the form. They are topical in their
subject matter, and show only rudimentary attempts at dramatic action.
The first has only two characters, and although the second has a cast
of five, two of them have only a line or two. At the close of each dia-
logue, however, "the curtains fall/' indicating that the author was writ-
ing for some sort of stage.53 A letter by Smith to John Phillips which
accompanied these dialogues shows that more than passing interest in
the dramatic form was maintained by this faculty member:

As you have been pleased, heretofore, to grant me your attention to pro-
ductions of this kind, I rely on. your candor, even without an apology.

The first mentioned dialogue was acted pretty naturally, as a real Aborigi-
nal defended the part of the Indian. The other incurred no censure; and
passed for a humor.54

It is evident that the college playwright, then as now, concerned himself
with such matters as type-casting and audience reaction.

Hugh Brackenridge became master of the Somerset Academy in
Maryland after he graduated from the College of New Jersey. That
he did not forget the possibilities of the drama as a weapon in the
battle for freedom "is proved by the dramatic piece written by him for

DRAMATICS IN 19TH CENTURY COLLEGES 531

his scholars, and which after due preparation they exhibited It was

called Bunker Hill, composed shortly after the battle." 55 The Battle
of Bunker Hill is "A Dramatic Piece of Five Acts, in Heroic measure.
. . . The principal characters are well-known officers in the British and
American Armies." 56 Brackenridge followed this play with The Death
of General Montgomery in the Storming of the City of Quebec, in 1777.
His note to the public is of interest here, for it shows the traditional
suspicion of the professional theatre, and the rigid dichotomy which
was maintained between the professional and the academic stage:

It is my request that the following Dramatic Composition be considered
only as a school piece .... It is intended for the private entertainment of
gentlemen of taste and martial enterprise, but by no means for exhibition on
the stage.57

There seems to be no record of the occasion of the performance of
these plays at Somerset Academy, but it is probable that they were a
part of the graduation exercises. Evidence of school performances m
this period is even more rare than for the colleges. Earle records a per-
formance of an exhibition or "showing-ofF at a girls' school in New
York in 1784. "The 'Search after Happiness' by Mrs. More, The Mil-
liner/ and "The Dove/ by Madame Genlis were performed." Such ex-
hibitions were common at girls' schools at the close of the school year,
and may have provided the major opportunities for school drama dur-
ing this period.58

<CI Will Gladly Embrace Jour Judgement Agaynst
Histriones"

Brackenridge's classmates did not all share his implied rejection of
the professional theatre, for Samuel Greville, the first American profes-
sional actor, apparently chose to follow his profession shortly after
leaving the College of New Jersey. His new career was viewed with
mock horror and quizzical interest by at least one former classmate,
William Paterson (later Governor of New Jersey), in a letter to John
MacPherson, Jr., dated January 26, 1767:

Poor Greville, what a noble subject on which to moralize, "in truth 'tis piti-
ful, most wondrous pitiful." Sam's fate reached Princeton long ago, before he
appeared on the stage. You might have been more particular, and informed
me what induced him to take that unhappy course. Was it because his
finances were reduced to a low ebb, or was he smitten by an actress, as is
not uncommon? 59

There is little evidence of play production in American colleges be-
fore 1750, although William and Mary witnessed some sort of dramatic
activity almost a half-century before. The traditional Puritan opposition

532 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

to the drama effectively prevented plays at most of the colonial colleges
prior to the middle of the century. Although antagonism to the profes-
sional theatre remained implacable, there was a noticeable increase in
collegiate dramatics in the latter part of the century.

The drama appears in the colleges of this period in several well-
defined forms. As "academical exercises/' the performance of classical
plays seems to have been used to stimulate student interest in and to
aid in the study of Latin. Extracurricular plays were not lacking, how-
ever, as is proved by the comparatively extensive program of plays pre-
sented by the early literary societies, especially those at Yale. Even
where literary societies did not produce plays, student initiative over-
came the difficulties on occasion, and plays were presented. A general
interest in the drama by college students is evidenced by entries in
letters and diaries of the period. Commencement plays and "dialogues"
constitute a third category of eighteenth-century college drama.

Although acting as a profession did not attract college men, both
faculty and students were eager to write plays. These were written for
commencement exercises as well as for less formal occasions. Bracken-
ridge's preface to a play written for his students at Somerset Academy
shows disdain for the professional stage; yet Thomas Godfrey seems
to have drawn no censure for The Prince of Parthia after his death.

1800-1861

No sharp line divides the eighteenth century from the nineteenth in
American collegiate dramatics. We find less mention of plays in the
colleges during the first part of the nineteenth century. It would appear
that this is because the performance of such plays was considered less
"newsworthy" than it had been in earlier years. It is true that Yale
President Dwight's condemnatory Essay on the Stage appeared in 1824,
and that the Yale societies had stopped their dramatic activity by the
end of the eighteenth century; yet Wegelin records the production of
Zamor, a tragedy, which "formed part of the commencement exercises
at Yale College in 1815." 60 Amherst's first commencement, in 1822,
featured two dialogues and a colloquy, as well as three orations, a salu-
tory in Latin, and a prayer by President Moore.61 In some instances,
new literary societies followed the lead of those at older colleges in
claiming the drama as their province. The Adelphic Society of Union
College presented an exhibition in 1808 which included a play, Pulaski,
written by member Henry Warner. John Howard Payne, then a student,
played the only female role, Lodoiska.62 Wake Forest's first play, writ-
ten by a Professor Armstrong, was the contribution of the Euzelian
Society to the Fourth of July celebration in 1836.63 The University of

DRAMATICS IN 10TH CENTURY COLLEGES 533

Virginia appears to have produced no plays prior to the Civil War,
although there is reason to suppose that the student body was inter-
ested in acted drama:

[1831] A Thespian Society had abeady been organized in the town. , . .
Several students were accused of joining the society, but they all denied per-
sonal connection with it. At least one, however, John Leitch, was known to
have participated in a theatrical performance that took place in the town; but
this may have been a drama staged by an obscure company in the course of
a tour.64

A play, Traconi, written by College Chaplain Walter Colton, was given
in 1826 as part of the celebration of the sixth anniversary of the found-
ing of Norwich University in Vermont. Another faculty member wrote
the 1837 commencement play, which satirized "Grahamism" (a con-
temporary vegetarian fad) among other things.65

The Litchfield, Connecticut, school for girls produced plays written
by the head mistress, Miss Sarah Pierce. The Litchfield Female Acad-
emy, as it was called after its incorporation in 1827 (the school opened
in 1792), presented these plays at the end of the school term, evidently
in the tradition of the college commencement plays. The plays them-
selves, to judge from the three Vanderpoel has printed in her Chronicles
of a Pioneer School™ were highly didactic, moral pieces. The subject
matter of two of them is taken from the Old Testament, while the plot
of the third revolves on the duty of parents to bring up their children
so that they will be virtuous and "free from vanity." A rather surprising
characteristic of the productions is that "the young men of the town
were often invited to take part." 67

Elocution programs in the schools also offered an opportunity for a
kind of dramatic exercise. The Lancastrian School at New Haven, Con-
necticut, was in the habit of presenting these programs once or twice
a year between 1818 and 1850. The programs, which began at six in
the evening and lasted "several hours," consisted largely in the delivery
of declamations by the pupils— often famous historical speeches, but
"There were also a few dramatic selections from Douglas, Bertram, and
the Castle Spectre, in which the pupils exhibited their declamatory
skill in portraying the characters." 68

It seems clear, however, that if no sharp decline can be traced in the
academic drama during this period, that this activity had ceased to be
as significant a part of the college scene as it had been during previous
years. It was a period of rapid acceleration in the growth of higher
education in this country, and no longer was the American college to
be a monopoly of the eastern seaboard states. The church continued to
be the major influence in the founding of new colleges ( 150 denomina-
tional colleges were founded between 1800 and 1861, as compared

534 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

to eighteen state institutions ),69 and the concept of the colleges as a
"nursery of ministers7' continued, if anything, stronger than before.70
The greatly increased number of colleges and the varying circumstances
under which they were operated in this period make it unwise to
generalize about administrative policy toward extracurricular drama.
The rise of evangelism, for example, seems to have strongly affected
play-giving in some colleges, whereas in others it made little difference.
"The forces of orthodox religion, after a temporary setback during the
Revolution, regained their ascendancy over the cultural life of this
country at the turn of the century. . . . This ascendancy was maintained
in large part up to the time of the Civil War." 71

The determination of the trustees and faculty of the College of New
Jersey to impose this orthodoxy on the students is blamed by Borgers
for the complete disappearance of plays at that institution between
1783 and 1874. The single reference to the drama at that college during
this period of one hundred years is found in the diary of student John
Buhler, who wrote a tragedy which was rehearsed but not produced in
1845.72 This regimen was not imposed on New Jersey students without
a struggle. While other eastern colleges also were having trouble main-
taining the absolute control which had been possible in the eighteenth
century,73 the College of New Jersey seems to have adhered rigidly to
the wishes of the church until well after the Civil War.

Despite the religious revivals which swept the colleges intermittently
during the first decades of the nineteenth century,74 there was no lack
of interest in the theatre by college students. The extension of the rail-
way system increased the opportunity for Princeton students to attend
the theatre: John Buhler's diary in 1846 happily noted that a change
in train schedules made it possible for students to get to Philadelphia
in time for evening performances.75 An anonymous letter to President
Kirkland of Harvard sometime in the 1830?s drew his attention to the
fact that from sixty to one hundred tickets were "sold every play night
to young men from Cambridge."76 This interest by college students
seems to reflect the general growing toleration for the theatre in the
country as a whole.

With the exception of classical comedies, tragedy was the dramatic
form most acceptable to the faculties of American colleges in the early
nineteenth century. When students were able to carry out their own
wishes, on the other hand, the usual preference seems to have been for
light comedy or farce. English comedy did not have much literary
standing during this period, at least at the University of Virginia. In
the University Library is found the statement:

Shakespeare gained an entrance under the head of Tragedy, but no English
author enjoyed the like distinction under the head of Comedy. As the plays

DRAMATICS IN 19TH CENTUBY COLLEGES 535

of Sheridan, Goldsmith, and Congreve could claim no higher usefulness
than an ability to tickle the sense of amusement, they were rejected, and
the Latin Humorists were enthroned in their stead.77

Youngerman says the "theatrical activities at the University [o£ Wis-
consin] were preceded by years of student rhetoricals and elocution/' 7S
In 1856 the elocution courses were using the Greek drama for class
exercises, and the German drama was added in 1858. 79 But comedy was
valued in the classroom for neither its literary nor its elocutionary pos-
sibilities. Outside the classroom, however, English farce and comedy
found a welcome. The early programs of Harvard's Hasty Pudding
Club reflect the students' preference in the drama when they were not
restrained by faculty supervision.

The Hasty Pudding Club did not begin its prominent role in Amer-
ican college dramatics until 1844, although it had been founded in
1795. In its early years it had been "a rather jolly amalgam of literary,
convivial, and patriotic elements," 80 which soon became the largest of
the college societies. The interest of the society after 1800 centered in
debates on "questions of literature, morality, and politics/' which fol-
lowed society suppers. Later activities were burlesque trials on such,
matters as Dido vs. Aeneas for breach of promise.81 These trials fore-
shadowed, in the late 1830's, the activity which was to bring fame to
the Hasty Pudding Club; for it became customary to enliven the pro-
ceedings "by costuming the court, bar, and witnesses/' 82 In the records
of the club, in accordance with the traditional obligation for the secre-
taries to write their minutes in verse, appears this entry in 1844:

At the termination

Of the initiation

The Club received an invitation

To a theatrical representation,

Of Pudding rules an innovation,

And of college regulation

A most flagrant violation.83

The "theatrical representation" referred to was a performance of
Bombastes Furioso, organized by Lemuel Hayward, of the class of
1845, and presented in his room at the regularly scheduled meeting.84
This production was the first of a series which was to continue each
year to the present date, interrupted only by national emergencies. In
1849 the club was granted two rooms in one of the dormitories, but it
did not boast a stage until 1871.85

The plays presented by the Hasty Pudding Club prior to the Civil
War were largely stock farces from the professional stage.86 Limited
production facilities made small casts essential, and in consequence

536 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

plays which met the requirements were played again and again. Exami-
nation of the record between 1844 and 1860 shows six performances of
Borribastes Furioso; five of Lend Me Five Shillings; four of Slasher and
Crasher and of Box and Cox; and three each of Chrononhotonthologos
and The Dead Shot. We may assume that the plays were adapted to
the needs and taste of the club, but the extent of such changes is diffi-
cult to determine. In 1855 Fielding's Tom Thumb was set to music by
a club member, but no totally original play was produced in this period.
Tom Thumb represented the club's first musical play, the precursor of
the extravaganzas which were to be the trademark of the Hasty Pud-
ding in later years. From the earliest time this club showed an un-
changing preference for farce and burlesque, never attempting serious
drama.

In the early days of the club, performances were frequent, sometimes
as often as once every two weeks. The first plays were obviously not
elaborate productions:

The audience sat in a small room, without a stage or footlights, save a circle
of tallow dips or lamps, at one end of which the play was performed with an
Elizabethan spirit that made up for lack of illusion. The music, what there
was of it, —sometimes only a flageolet,— was furnished by the Company; while,
partly for secrecy, partly for economy's sake, the cast of the play was
placarded about the walls. . . .

From this small beginning there grew an organization which was to be
of great importance in the development of extracurricular dramatics in
American colleges and universities. For us, the significance of the early
Hasty Pudding Club lies in the continuity of the early performances.
Its major influence, in the field of musical burlesque, will be discussed
later.

College dramatics in the period from 1800 to 1861 continued in the
directions which had been indicated in the earlier years. Although the
number of colleges increased greatly during this period, there seems to
have been no proportional increase in college play production— this,
despite evidence which shows that college stud^pts were increasingly
interested in the theatre, and went to see professional performances
whenever possible.87 Plays continued to be presented at commence-
ments and other celebrations, and often these plays were written by
faculty members. English tragedy was recognized as a worthy literary
study by the colleges, whereas English comedy was relegated to the
realm of "mere" entertainment by the college educators. When students
had the chance to make their own choice, they usually chose to present
farce or burlesque. The Harvard Hasty Pudding Club began its long
play-producing career in this period, foreshadowing later dramatic
clubs.

DRAMATICS IN 19TH CENTURY COLLEGES 537

The Civil War to 1900

According to Samuel Eliot Morison, Harvard's historian, <ffrom the
Civil War to the World War Harvard undergraduates had an insatiable
thirst for theatricals/' ss The thirst was by no means confined to
Harvard, It was during this period that college plays took their place
on the American campus as a major extracurricular activity. The moral
censure of the stage which had militated against the academic drama
in previous eras had largely disappeared, The commercial theatre's
growth had stimulated interest in the acted drama. The extension of
the railway system to the west made performances by road companies
available to communities which had formerly been strangers to the
theatre. Most large towns had their own stock companies, and the
hamlet was remote indeed which had not witnessed a minstrel show or
a performance of Uncle Toms Cabin. College students all over the
country became interested in plays, and began producing and acting
in them. The student playwright was again in evidence, and the first
plays at a college were often "originals."

A new phenomenon appeared in college theatricals shortly after the
Civil War. For the first time, students banded together in organizations
whose primary purpose was the presentation o£ plays. One of the
earliest was the Thalian Dramatic Association, founded at Brown in
1866. 89 Vassar's Philaletheis was formed in 1866, but was originally a
literary society of the older type which occasionally put on plays.9 a
Fordham's St. John's Dramatic Association was founded in 1871, and
the Williams Dramatic Association in 1872. The Cornelian Minstrels
were founded at Cornell in the same year, and 1875 saw the first per-
formance of the university's Amateur Dramatic Association.91 The
Tufts Dramatic Club was formed in 1876. 92 A performance by Law-
rence Barrett of Hamlet in 1879 led to the formation of the Barrett Club
at the University of Michigan in 1880.93 A "Dramatic Club" was
founded at the University of Wisconsin in 1885;94 the Princeton College
Dramatic Association Vas founded the same year, after a previous
"College Dramatic Association," formed in 1882, had proved not to
be permanent.95 The Shakespeare Society at Wellesley presented an
open-air performance of As You Like It in 1889, and the Wellesley
Dramatic Association was founded in 1896.96 The University of Utah's
Dramatic Club gave its first performance in 1897,97 and Dartmouth's
Dramatic Club, which had been giving annual performances since
1886, changed its name in 1898 to The Buskin.98 In 1899 a women's
dramatic club, The Red Domino, was founded at the University of
Wisconsin; this club was later organized on a national basis.99 The
above list is not intended to be exhaustive; rather it is designed to show

538 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

the spread of the dramatic-club idea through the colleges in this
period.100

The dramatic clubs (with the exception of the musical comedy organ-
izations) lacked continuity. The extracurricular drama at individual
institutions seems to have run in cycles; clubs were founded and flour-
ished for a few years, only to disappear when those students gradu-
ated who were most interested. The leading spirit of the Tufts Dramatic
Club in 1876, for example, was J, H. Bradbury, later a comedian on the
professional stage. Ten years later a new organization, The Stuft Club,
was founded, only to disappear from the campus when John Burgess
Weeks, later stage manager for Otis Skinner, left college in 1892. By
1895 a new group, the Modjeska Club, was giving performances; and
so it went.101

The last half of the nineteenth century was a period of expansion
of the extracurricular aspects of college life. Play production increased
as did college athletics, glee clubs, social fraternities, and similar activi-
ties. The production of plays was by no means confined to "dramatic
clubs," for other organizations often found it both enjoyable and profit-
able to "put on a play." The "benefit performance" was common, and
many campuses were first introduced to college theatre by the presenta-
tion of a play whose primary purpose was to make money. In 1874
Norwich University students presented two plays, Neighbor Jackwood
and Loyal Mountaineers, in the local concert hall for the benefit of the
"Northfield Cornet Band/'102 At Amherst in 1870 the "Naval Dramatic
Association" was formed to present an "Exhibition*7; the profits from
this performance went to help form a crew to participate in inter-
collegiate rowing contests.103 The junior and senior classes at Brown
University were presenting comedies about the same time, for the
benefit of <£baseball and boating." 104 Horticultural Hall at Harvard
was the scene of performances by the athletes themselves; the Univer-
sity Boat Club and the Baseball Club gave public performances during
the seventies.105 Illinois College presented The Old Flag (by Samuel
Nichols, an alumnus) in 1891, in order to raise money for the athletic
association's effort to build a cinder running track.106 After producing
minstrel shows for several years, the athletic association of the Univer-
sity of Illinois produced, in 1895, The Rabbit's Foot, an original play
by W. E. Shutt of Springfield, Illinois.107 Mount Holyokes production
of The Ghost of a Chance in 1897 "made possible . . . the customary
Junior Prom/' 108 The Ladies' Self-government Association at the Uni-
versity of Wisconsin gave a play and a musical program in 1900 to
raise funds for an art exhibit.109 At Goucher College it was forbidden
for many years to give entertainments for which admission was charged;
consequently at this college the benefit idea worked in reverse. "Oc-

DRAMATICS IN 19TH CENTURY COLLEGES 539

casionally a fortunate class made enough on its publication of Donny-
brook Fair [the college annual] to defray cost of production of its most
expensive production, the senior play, but that did not happen
often." 110 The college drama program sometimes helped with the
finances of functions vital to the institution itself. Norwich's Cadet The-
atrical Club, for example, donated the receipts of its production of
The Spy of Atlanta to the college library in 1883.111 Mount Holyoke's
plays in the nineties were usually given in the cause of the college
endowment fund.112 The high school at Madison, Wisconsin, presented
"an entertainment" to raise funds for the school library in 1884, indi-
cating that "benefits" were not restricted to higher education.113 The
whole picture of the late nineteenth-century academic drama indicates
that the college and school amateurs found in the drama a pleasing
and efficient money-maker. Indeed the "benefit" play remained char-
acteristic of high-school theatre into the twentieth century.

It remained for the oldest of all the clubs presenting plays in the
nineteenth century, Harvard's Hasty Pudding, to establish a custom
which was to influence the founding of clubs in other colleges for a
specific kind of dramatic performance—the musical burlesque. As has
been seen, the emphasis in the Hasty Pudding before the Civil War
had been simply on producing plays. There are few signs of attempts
at playwriting. The first original plays of which there is any record are
the burlesques Bluebeard and Babes in the Wood, written by club mem-
ber Edward J. Lowell and produced in June, 1866. Henry Cabot Lodge
and Henry W. Smith wrote the burlesque of Don Giovanni which was
produced in 1871.114 Owen Wister's opera-bouffe Dido and Aeneas,
produced in 1882, "'gave the club a national reputation . . . [and] from
'82 to the present time, not a class has failed to produce an original
play." 115 The production of 1891, Obispdh, was the first for which orig-
inal music was written; prior to this date, the music had been found
"through an old custom of ransacking the pages of others; Offenbach,
Lecoq, Suppe, Sullivan, Bizet, Meyerbeer and Wagner were among
those to whom [the Musical Manager] , . . had recourse." 116 With the
addition of an original score, the pattern was complete for a peculiarly
American phenomenon: the male undergraduate dramatic club which
produces musical comedy (though it was not until 1906 that the Hasty
Pudding plays were billed in this way).117 The custom of men playing
women's parts was almost a necessity in those colleges where no women
were enrolled; but the tradition was adopted in coeducational institu-
tions as well. The Haresfoot Club at the University of Wisconsin,
founded in 1899, was to set its precedent of all-male casts in 1907, and
its motto, "All our girls are men, yet every one's a lady," became familiar
wherever its productions were presented.118

540 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

Pennsylvania's Mask and Wig (founded 1892) and Princeton's Tri-
angle Club (named in 1893, though not otherwise altered from its pre-
vious year) were the next such groups to be formed.119 A revision of
John Brougham's burlesque of Indian plays, Po-ca-hon-tas, or the
Gentle Savage, produced in 1891 with added music by the Princeton
College Dramatic Association, led student Booth Tarkington to write
a farce, The Honorable Julius Caesar, for the 1892 production. This set
the pattern for future Triangle Club plays, a pattern described by
Borgers as "the annual presentation of an original comedy with original
music, characterized by an improbable plot, low-grade humor, female
impersonation, and a large chorus." 12° The Princeton College Dramatic
Association changed its name in 1893 to the Triangle Club in response
to an objection by the faculty to the use of the word "dramatic" in
describing the activity.121

Characteristic of these societies were the performances "on the road."
The performances of Tom Thumb, Hasty Pudding s 1854 musical play,
were given at private homes in Cambridge, Brookline, and at Chicker-
ing's in Boston.122 This marked the first time that a Hasty Pudding
Club play was shown before outsiders, but the "trip" became common
in later years, and when other college clubs began to produce such
plays, alurnni far from the campuses were given the opportunity to see
the performances.123 Dido and Aeneas was shown by the Hasty Pud-
ding in 1882 in New York, Philadelphia, and Boston, taking those cities
"by storm"; this established the real precedent which has since been
followed by the musical clubs.124 The Hasty Pudding Club writers
grew so expert that its 1892 production of The Sphinx, with libretto by
David Gray and music by Lewis S. Thompson, was later presented on
the professional stage.125 An idea of the lavishness of some of these
productions may be gathered from their expense. L. Guernsey Price,
writing in 1903 of the Columbia Varsity Show of the year before ( The
Mischief Maker}, estimated that it had cost $2,500, while the annual
burlesque of Pennsylvania's Mask and Wig "cost something like $5,000,
over half for scenery," 12G

The "musical comedy society," which was to be a spectacular part of
the campus scene at so many American colleges and universities in the
years to come, became firmly established at a few institutions before
the end of the century. It seems to have varied little from campus to
campus, although allowances must be made for differences in talent
from year to year. The organizations were run by the students, with only
nominal supervision by the faculty, and may be said to have been extra-
curricular in every sense of the term.

The general quickening of the college drama was marked by the
renascence of an old tradition, the production of foreign language plays.

DRAMATICS IN 19xH CENTURY COLLEGES 541

These performances, in both modern and classic languages, were spon-
sored by the various language faculties, apparently with the same end
in view that had prompted the original "academical exercises." The
"Scene in Terrence" exhibited "in private in the library" in 1762 at
Harvard, had anticipated by more than one hundred years the perform-
ance of Terence's Adelphi by Michigan's sophomore class in 1882
under the direction of Professors C. M. Gayley and R. P. De Pont,
although Adelphi was advertised as "The first Latin play ever given in
this country." 127 In 1890 Professor J. H. Koch of the same university
directed Plautus* Menaechmi, and this production was so successful
that it was later taken to Chicago for a performance at the request of
the alumni of that city.128

To Harvard, the home of so many "firsts" in the college theatre, goes
the credit for another significant beginning. The production of Oedipus
Tyrannus at Harvard in May, 1881, was remarkable in many ways.129
It was probably the first Greek tragedy presented in the original Greek
in America. Perhaps never in the history of the college theatre has so
much time and care been lavished on a single production. The play
was in rehearsal for over six months, and all details were carefully
supervised by the professors of the Greek department. No pains were
spared to insure all possible historical accuracy, although some modifi-
cations were made in an attempt to make the play more sympathetic to
the contemporary audience. Music was composed especially for the
production by Professor J. K. Paine of the Music Department, while
costuming was the responsibility of Mr. F. D. Millet, who "made a
prolonged study of costume from the historical and artistic points of
view." The latter attended many rehearsals in order to instruct the
players in the proper handling of the unfamiliar garments. George
Riddle (Harvard A. B., 1874), an instructor in elocution at Harvard,
played the leading role and later attempted it on the professional
stage.130 It is perhaps significant that of the remaining seven principal
actors, five were members of the Hasty Pudding Club. The dramatic
chorus was composed of fifteen members of the Harvard Glee Club,
while a forty-piece orchestra and a "supplementary chorus of sixty
voices" made up the company. The production was staged in the
Sanders Theatre, and was apparently an unqualified success:

The play was witnessed by six thousand people; on the occasion of the first
performance, by an audience which, for literary distinction, has probably
never been equalled in America; many persons were unable to obtain seats,
although ten times the original price was freely offered; it was reported by
every considerable newspaper in the country, and the news of its performance
was not only telegraphed to Europe, but was even inserted in the local papers
there 131

542 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

The enthusiasm and publicity which attended the Harvard produc-
tion stimulated other colleges to follow suit. Notre Dame had planned
a production of Oedipus Tyrannus in 1879, but a fire forced postpone-
ment until 1882.132 In all, Plugge lists thirty-seven performances of
Greek plays at American colleges between 1881 and 1900:133 Beloit
College s production of Antigone in 1885 marked the beginning of a
tradition. With the exception of 1893, that institution produced a Greek
play every year until 1903? and intermittently thereafter.134 There seems
to have been only one recorded performance of a Greek play in a high
school during the nineteenth century. The Gloversville, New York,
high school produced Iphigenia in Tauris in 1896.135

Departments of Greek sponsored all of the Greek plays at the college
level in this period, but they were often presented in translation. There
were eighteen performances in English between 1881 and 1903, while
fifteen were presented in the original language.136 At Beloit, the trans-
lations, in meter, were made by the sophomore class in Greek; while
each member of the cast of Antigone, presented by Drury College in
1897, translated his own role as part of his work in advanced Greek.137
This marks an early example of the invasion of the curriculum by the
acted drama. The production of Greek plays had the approval and often
the assistance of the college authorities in the late nineteenth century.

French and German plays— although performances do not appear in
numbers until somewhat later than the Greek plays— were common in
the last two decades of the century. They were most often produced
under the auspices of the French and German clubs which grew up
about this time. Although Gafflot says the productions of Le Misan-
thrope in 1888 and a "modern play by Labiche" in 1889 by Harvard's
Cercle Frangais were "the first performance of French drama in any
college or university since the expulsion of the Jesuits from France in
1762," there was a performance of Racine's Les Plaideurs at Michigan's
commencement in 1882.138 The high school at Ann Arbor, Michigan,
had produced a "French play'' in February, 1872.139 There may have
been a friendly rivalry between the French and German Departments
at Goucher College, for 1884 marks the first plays in both French and
German. Le Premier Roman and scenes from Minna von Bamhelm,
Sappho, and Die Jungfrau von Orleans were produced in that year,140
The Deutsche Gesellschaft at Northwestern produced Eigensinn and
Der Dritte in 1895, and observed the Schiller festival with a scene from
Wilhelm Tell.14* The Cercle Frangais of the University of Illinois pro-
duced Labiche and Martin's Le Poudre aux Jeux in 1896, while in 1900
that institution's Deutsche Verein presented Einer Muss Heiraten.14*
The University of Wisconsin's Germanische Gesellschaft took advan-
tage of the large German community in nearby Milwaukee to bring to

DRAMATICS IN 19XH CENTURY COLLEGES 543

Madison from that city professional companies producing plays in
German. Minna von Barnhelm was sponsored in 1901, and Wilhelm
Tell for the Schiller Day festival in 1905, "so that the student might
have an increased knowledge of German drama/' 143 Harvard's Ger-
man department installed the Conreid Company of New York on the
stage of the Sanders Theatre in 1899-1900, to produce plays by Goethe
and Lessing.144 In 1897-1898 Harvard's French Department pro-
duced Racine's Athalie, with Mendelssohn's music and "impressive
choruses." 145

The foreign language play, as may be seen, was closer to the curri-
culum than any other kind of college dramatic activity during this
period. In most instances the faculties of the various language depart-
ments were the instigating forces behind the plays, producing, direct-
ing, and in at least one instance writing the play.146 An unusual produc-
tion at Stanford in 1903, however, found the Spanish Club presenting
Calderon contra Ramsey in Spanish, written by two students.147 Mod-
ern language plays began to be produced frequently during the last two
decades, although Cassidy says that French and Spanish plays were
sometimes part of the commencement program at Catholic colleges
prior to 1850.148

The foreign language play, associated with departments of instruc-
tion, doubtless helped to merge curricular and extracurricular drama.
Departments and professors of elocution and oratory also became inter-
ested in dramatic materials and production. For example, although
no course in "dramatic presentation" was offered at the University of
Wisconsin until 1906-1907,149 Macbeth and Othello were used for class
exercises in elocution beginning in 1884 by Professor David Franken-
berger, head of the Department of Rhetoric and Oratory.150 In 1892
Frankenberger directed Othello when it was presented by the Univer-
sity Dramatic Club,151 By 1898, with the object of stimulating "activity
and study along theatrical lines," cash prizes of fifty and thirty-five
dollars were being offered to "the best two casts . . . Casts were trained
by members of the Department of Rhetoric and Oratory/'152 The
"college elocution course" at the University of Utah in 1896, taught by
Professor Maude May Babcock, divided the class time equally between
"reading and study" of Julius Caesar, and extemporaneous speaking and
oratory.153 Professor Babcock is credited by Engar with supplying the
"drive and organizing ability to commence a sustained program in
[extra-curricular] dramatics." 154 In 1899 Shakespeare's birthday was
celebrated at Mount Holyoke with a semi-dramatic performance. Elo-
cution instructor Laura A. Rose read the texts while twelve Shake-
spearean scenes were presented in tableau.155

Shakespeare's were not the only "literary" plays which were to be

544 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

seen. Professor C. A. Corson at Cornell, together with his wife, directed
the Cascadilla Dramatic Association in a production of Oliver Gold-
smith's She Stoops to Conquer in 1880. Mrs. Corson's presence was salu-
tary. She was "an excellent actress, her enthusiasm, knowledge of
foreign theatres, and general interest in dramatic art had an inspiring
influence." 156 Professor R. M. Maulsby of Tufts College directed Ralph
Roister Doister, which was presented in the college gymnasium in
1895. 157 Elizabethan drama was produced by the Delta Upsilon fra-
ternity at Harvard— the plays of Dekker, Beaumont and Fletcher, and
others were presented under the direction of the famous George Pierce
Baker beginning in 1900.158 Gilbert and Sullivan operettas found a
responsive audience on American campuses, as they did all over the
English-speaking world. Pinafore was presented at Princeton on April
24, 1879, "hardly a year after its completion," 159 and was given at Dart-
mouth the following year.160 Michigan's lolanthe company, which per-
formed in 1883, was made up of both students and faculty.161 The
appeal which Gilbert and Sullivan have always had for high schools
manifested itself early; Trial by Jury was performed by the Madison,
Wisconsin, high school in 1879.162

American women's colleges in this period were not behind the rest
of the college world in the production of the classics of the drama.
Vassar, whose Philalethean Society presented a scene from Henry VIII
in celebration of the second anniversary of the society in 1867, seems
to have set a standard for play production at that college. "The students
of the first decade established the tradition for good plays, for 'The
Rivals/ 'She Stoops to Conquer7 and 'The Taming of the Shrew' are
typical of the plays given." 163 The first "play" at Goucher College could
hardly have been more sedate, for it consisted of tableaux with readings
from Tennyson's Dream of Fair Women.164 Wellesley's Shakespeare
Society was for many years a branch of the London Shakespeare So-
ciety, and devoted itself to "the study and dramatic presentation of
Shakespeare/' 165 Smith College's production of Sophocles' Electra was
the first Greek play at a women's college,166 but Wellesley 167 and
Vassar 16S followed before 1900. Although Doyle says that some play
producing groups at women's colleges were "entirely independent of
faculty assistance or direction/' 169 it is clear that they were not free
from faculty supervision, to judge from the rules which applied to the
productions themselves. College girls acting the male roles, for example,
were hindered by a rule which seems to have arisen from an early
prejudice against higher education for women, on the grounds that it
tended to unsex them, They were forbidden to wear men's clothes, and
the expedients which were resorted to are amusing in retrospect, as they
must have been to an objective observer at the time. Goucher College

DRAMATICS IN 10TH CENTURY COLLEGES 545

"men" wore gymnasium costumes, long ulsters, or raincoats over their
skirts.170 At Mount Holyoke "prior to [1918] . . . bloomers, instead of
trousers . . . lent a hilarious touch to many a scene/' 171 while dark
skirts were the convention which indicated masculinity in Vassar
plays.172

The change in the attitude of the colleges toward the professional
theatre in this period is most clearly shown by the appearance on the
college lecture platform of professional theatre men. The actor, play-
wright, director, and student of Delsarte, Steele Mackaye, appeared "in
the 1870Y' at Princeton under the auspices of the Student Lecture Asso-
ciation. His subject was "The Mystery of Emotion and its Expression
in Art." 17S In the eighties the public lectures at Harvard reflected inter-
est in the drama. The English actor Henry Irving lectured in the 1884-
1885 season; the German scholar Kuno Francke gave three lectures on
the contemporary drama in 1887-1888.174 Bronson Howard, the Ameri-
can playwright who "represents the . . . establishment of the profession
of the dramatist in this country," 175 lectured at Harvard in 1886. His
subject was "The Autobiography of a Play/' a description of the suc-
cessive revisions of his popular Bankers Daughter. 176 In 1897 Joseph
Jefferson, sponsored by the Oratorical Association, lectured at the Uni-
versity of Michigan on "The Actor and His Art/3 1T7 The fact of these
lectures is clear evidence of the respectability to which the drama had
attained in American colleges in the space of a hundred years.

We can conclude that dramatic activity in American schools and col-
leges prior to 1900 reveals several discrete influences. The colonial and
Revolutionary periods are marked by an antagonism toward the theatre
on the part of the Puritan schools and colleges, tempered by recogni-
tion of the educational values of the drama. This antagonism lasted
well into the nineteenth century at some institutions. Despite this oppo-
sition, the literary societies at Yale in the last decades of the eighteen
century engaged in an intensive program of extracurricular dramatics,
and were imitated at several other colleges. Although there were iso-
lated instances of performances (usually in Latin) which were officially
recognized by the administrators of the colleges, the only dramatic
activity which approached the literary society performances in quantity
were the commencement odes and dialogues, which were presented in
at least a semi-dramatic form.

The period from 1800 to the Civil War was one which saw a great
increase in the number of colleges, but there does not seem to have
been a corresponding growth in college theatricals. Many of the new
colleges were founded by evangelical religious sects, and the religious
revivals which intermittently swept the campuses may have affected

546 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

the drama adversely. College men in the eastern states had more oppor-
tunity to attend the professional theatre, and the first Hasty Pudding
Club play was inspired by such attendance, The history of this club is
important, for it foreshadowed the formation after the Civil War of
dramatic clubs whose only function was to produce plays. During the
later period almost every college and many schools had some sort of
dramatic program presented at irregular intervals by dramatic clubs
(often short-lived), or by other organizations which found play pro-
duction a means of raising money. The musical comedy organizations
modeled after the Hasty Pudding Club became traditional on many
campuses. They enthusiastically presented musical burlesques and
operas bouffes which were often expensively mounted and which played
to audiences of alumni and the general public as well as to the student
body,

The theatre attracted the interest of college and university faculties,
and the college drama was given real impetus by the various language
departments. Plays in French, German, Spanish, Latin, and Greek
began to be presented quite regularly. Since adaptations of foreign
plays had long been popular on the professional stage, it may be that
this innovation helped to make the drama more respectable, academi-
cally speaking.178 Beloit and Drury Colleges made the Greek play a
part of the course-work in Greek, and elocution courses in many col-
leges were using dramatic literature for training. With the appearance
of professional theatre men on the lecture platform of American univer-
sities the way was prepared for the acted drama to take its place as part
of the curriculum.

Notes

1. Quoted in Samuel Eliot Morison, Harvard College in the Seventeenth Cen-
tury (Cambridge, Mass., 1936), Part II, p. 464.

2. Virginia Gazette, September 10, 1736, quoted in Lyon Gardiner Tyler,
Williamsburg, The Old Colonial Capital (Richmond, Va., 1907), pp. 224-225.

3. Tyler, quoting, p. 228.

4. George Winship, The First Harvard Playwright, A Bibliography of the
Restoration Playwright John Crowne (Cambridge, Mass., 1922), p. 3.

5. See Josiah Quincy, History of Harvard University (Boston, 1860), I, 559.

6. Evarts B. Greene, Religion and the State in America (New York, 1941),
p. 44.

7. Barrett Wendell, Cotton Mather, Puritan Priest (Cambridge, Mass., 1926),
p. 202.

8. The extent to which American colleges were "organized, supported, and
in most cases controlled by religious interests" up to the time of the Civil War has
been indicated by Donald Tewksbury in The Founding of American Colleges and
Universities Before the Civil War, Teachers College, Columbia University, Contri-
butions to Education, No. 543 (New York, 1932). See especially pages 55-56. Of
the twenty-seven permanent colleges founded in this country prior to 1800, all but
three (the Universities of Georgia, North Carolina and Vermont were state insti-
tutions from the beginning) were founded by religious groups; eighteen of the

DRAMATICS IN 19xH CENTURY COLLEGES 547

remainder were organized and operated by dissenting churches. Moreover, the
early colleges, almost without exception, were founded to provide an educated
ministry for the religious interests they represented. President Thomas Clap of Yale,
writing in a pamphlet published in 1754, might have been speaking for the founders
of each institution when he wrote, "The great design of founding this School was
to educate Ministers in our Own Way."

9. Frederick S. Boas, "University Drama in the Tudor Age (Oxford, 1914),
p. 220. A full account of the incident may be found in this book. See also E. N. S.
Thompson, The Controversy Between the Puritans and the State, Yale Studies in
English, XX (New York, 1903), 95-100.

10. See James L. McConaughy, The School Drama, Teachers College, Colum-
bia University, Contributions to Education, No. 57 (New York, 1914), Ch. L

11. Boas, pp. 235-236, 241.

12. Samuel Eliot Morison, in The Puritan Pronaos (New York, 1936), pp. 18,
19, has drawn attention to the influence of the English universities upon the intel-
lectual leaders of the early New England communities— including the men respon-
sible for the establishment of the colonial colleges. "[This] was the standard to
which the New England puritans attempted, however imperfectly, to attain . . .
The great, absorbing intellectual interest in the Oxford and Cambridge and Dublin
from which the founders of New England came was . . . ecclesiastical controversy/'

13. Edward B. Coe, "The Literary Societies," Yale College, A Sketch of Its
History, ed. William L. Kingsley (New York, 1879), p. 308.

14. Quoted by Edward W. Borgers, "A History of Dramatic Production in
Princeton, New Jersey," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University,
1950, pp. 24-25.

15. Quoted in Thomas Jefferson Wertenbacker, Princeton 1746-1896 (Prince-
ton, New Jersey, 1946), p. 29.

16. Quoted in Franklin Bowditch Dexter, Student Life at Yale in the Early
Days of Connecticut Hall (Reprinted from VoL VII of the New Haven Colony
Historical Society Transactions, 1907), p. 295,

17. Leon Burr Richardson, History of Dartmouth College (Hanover, N. H.,
1932),!, 272.

18. Quoted in Albert Matthews, "Early Plays at Harvard," Nation, XCVIII
(March, 19, 1914), 295.

19. Quoted in Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts (Boston,
1912), XIII, 320. DeBerdt was an agent in London of the Massachusetts House
of Representatives from November, 1765, to April, 1770.

20. Matthews, op. cit.

21. "The Laws of Harvard College (1767)," ed. Allyn Bailey Forbes, Publi-
cations of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts (Boston, 1935), XXXI, 358.

22. Matthews, op. cit.

23. William and Mary Quarterly Historical Magazine, XXII (April, 1914),
288.

24. Matthews, op. cit.

25. Ibid.

26. For example, Marjorie L Smith, "Dramatic Activity Before 1800 in the
Schools and Colleges of America," unpublished M.A. thesis, Cornell, 1948, pp.
98-99: "Only the purest Calvinism was permitted in the teaching of Yale students
and only those principles of behavior [which] closely adhered to the Puritan way
of life."

27. Edward B. Coe's chapter (see note 13) and Ota Thomas' article, "Student
Dramatic Activities at Yale College During the Eighteenth Century," Theatre An-
nual, 1944 (New York, 1945), offer good secondary sources for those to whom the
records of the society are not available.

28. Coe, p. 308.

29. Ibid., p. 316.

548 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATBE

30. Ibid., p. 811.

31. Ibid., p. 309.

32. Ibid., p. 312.

33. Ibid., p. 314.

34. Marjorie I. Smith, op. cit., p. 110.

35. Ibtd.

36. John King Lord, A History of Dartmouth College 1815-1909 (Concord,
N. H., 1913), pp. 525-526.

37. Matthews, loc. cit.

38. Smith, p. 125.

39. Wertenbacker, 'Princeton 1746-1896, p. 197. He quotes from Princeton
Library MSS, Am 8796 and Am 11288.

40. Library of American Biography, XXIV (1847), 23.

41. Recorded in William S. Demarest, A History of Rutgers College (Prince-
ton, New Jersey, 1924), p. 149.

42. Arthur Hobson Quinn, A History of American Drama from the 'Beginning
to the Civil War (New York, 1946), p. 9.

43. Ibid., p. 18.

44. Thomas R. Birch, The First One Hundred Years of the Zelosophic Literary'
Society (Philadelphia, 1929), p. 87. See, however, Smith, op. cit., p. 142, who
contends that William Smith is the adapter of this play, and that he, not the stu-
dents, made the additions which caused this play to be classified as an original
composition.

45. Quinn, op. cit., p. 18.

46. Lord, op. cit., p. 514.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid.

49. Arthur Hobson Quinn, "The Early Drama, 1756-1860," The Cambridge
History of American Literature, p. 215.

50. Oscar Wegelin, Early American Plays 1714-1860 (New York, 1905), p. 13.

51. Coe, "The Literary Societies," p. 318.

52. Quoted in Smith, op. cit., p. 114.

53. Harold G. Rugg, "The Dartmouth Plays, 1779-1782," Theatre Annual,
1942 (New York, 1943), pp. 55-69. This article contains photostats of the complete
manuscripts, as well as the accompanying letter.

54. Ibid., p. 58.

55. H. H. Brackenridge, Modern Chivalry (Philadelphia, 1856), II, 154.

56. Wegelin, p. 22.

57. Borgers, "The History of Dramatics at Princeton," pp. 36-37.

58. Alice More Earle, Child Life in Colonial Dam (New York, 1899), pp.
115-116.

59. W. J. Mills, ed., Glimpses of Colonial Society and the Life at Princeton
College 1766-1776 (Philadelphia, 1903), p. 30.

60. Wegelin, p. 66.

61. Claude Moore Fuess, Amherst: The Story of a New England College (Bos-
ton, 1935), p. 56.

62. Willis T. Hanson, Jr., Early Life of John Howard Payne (Boston, 1913),
p. 110.

63. An interesting description of this open-air performance may be found in
George Washington PaschaFs History of Wake Forest College, I, 154 ff .

64. Alexander Bruce, History of the University of Virginia (New York, 1920^
I, 57-58.

65. William A. Ellis, Norwich University, 1819-1911 (Montpelier, Vt, 1911),
1,57-58.

66. Sarah Pierce, "Ruth," "The Two Cousins," and "Jep^h's Daughter,"
Chronicles of a Pioneer School from 1792 to 1833, compiled by Emily Noyes Van-
derpoel (Cambridge, Mass., 1903), pp. 84-145.

DRAMATICS IN 19TH CENTURY COLLEGES 549

67. Vanderpoel, Chronicles of a Pioneer School, p. 84.

68. Esther Alice Peck, A Conservative Generation's Amusements, University
of Maine Studies, 2nd Series, No. 44 (Bangor, Me., 1938), p. 11.

69. Tewksbury, The Founding of American Colleges and Universities, pp.
32-54.

70. Ibid., pp. 83-84.

71. Ibid., p. 57.

72. Borgers, "A History of Dramatics at Princeton,'* pp. 47-48.

73. Wertenbacker, Princeton, 1746-1896, quotes letters from the presidents of
Harvard, Union, and Yale, congratulating the trustees of the College of New Jersey
for their action after the riot of 1807, and implying that "impatience of control"
on the part of college students was a national problem.

74. Wertenbacker, p. 166, and Tewksbury, pp. 66-67.

75. Wertenbacker, p. 249.

76. C. E. Walton, An Historical Prospect of Harvard College, 1636-1936 (Bos-
ton, 1936), p. 35.

77. Bruce, History of the University of Virginia, II, 188.

78. Henry C. Youngerman, "Theatrical Activities: Madison, Wisconsin, 1836-
1907," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1940, p. 127.

79. Ibid., p. 157.

80. Samuel Eliot Monson, Three Centuries of Harvard College (Cambridge,
Mass., 1937), pp. 182-183.

81. Ibid.

82. Lloyd McKim Garrison, "The H. P. C. Theatre, An Historical Sketch," An
Illustrated History of the Hasty Pudding Club Theatricals, ed. Theodore Chase,
et al. (Cambridge, Mass., 1933), no pagination.

83. Ibid.

84. Ibid., "The First Pudding Play."

85. Garrison, op. cit.

86. The information and the quotation in the next two paragraphs come from
the Garrison article.

87. Garrison, op. cit. Hayward got the idea for the first Hasty Pudding Club
play from having seen Bombastes Furioso presented by a company in Boston.

88. Three Centuries of Harvard, p. 431.

89. Walter C. Bronson, The History of Brown University, 1764-1914 (Provi-
dence, R. I., 1914), p. 348.

90. Agnes Rogers, Vassar Women ( Poughkeepsie, N. Y., 1940), p. 348.

91. Waterman Thomas Hewett, Cornell University, A History (New York,
1905), I, 139.

92. History of Tufts College, ed. Alaric B. Start (Cambridge, Mass., 1896),
p. 69.

93. Wilfred Shaw, The University of Michigan (New York, J920), p. 222.

94. Youngerman, "Theatrical Activities: Madison, Wisconsin," p. 128.

95. Borgers, "A History of Dramatic Production in Princeton, New Jersey,"
p. 80.

96. Florence Converse, Wellesley College 1875-1938 (Wellesley, Mass., 1939),
p. 153.

97. Keith Engar, "History of Dramatics at the University of Utah From Begin-
nings Until June, 1919," unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Utah, 1948, p. 20.

98. Richardson, History of Dartmouth College, II, 644, 731.

99. Youngerman, p. 132.

100. The University of Illinois seems to have been an exception, for the literary
societies, Philomathean and Adelphic (founded in 1868) were "for the first thirty
years of the university the chief sponsors of undergraduate [dramatic] activity."
(Mary Elizabeth Homrighaus, "A History of Non-professional Theatrical Produc-
tion at the University of Illinois from its Beginnings to 1923," unpublished M.A.
thesis, University of Illinois, 1949, p. 3. )

550 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

101. Start, op. cit., p. 69.

102. Ellis, Norwich University 1819-1911, I, 168.

103. Fuess, Amherst: The Story of a New England College, p. 199,

104. Bronson, The History of Brown University, p. 379.

105. Morison, Three Centuries of Harvard, p. 431.

106. Charles Henry Rammelkamp, Illinois College, A Centennial History 1829-
1929 (New Haven, Conn., 1928), p. 371.

107. Homrighaus, op. cit., p. 16.

108. Arthur C. Cole, A Hundred Years of Mount Holyoke College (New Haven,
Conn., 1940), p. 229.

109. Youngerman, op. cit., p. 133.

110. Anna Heubeck Knipp and Thaddeus P. Thomas, The History of Goucher
College (Baltimore, 1938), p. 460.

111. Ellis, op. cit., I, 185.

112. Cole, p. 229.

113. Youngerman, p. 126.

114. Garrison, "The H. P. C. Theatre, An Historical Sketch."

115. Ibid.

116. Owen Wister, "The First Operetta."

117. An Illustrated History of the Hasty Pudding Club Theatricals.

118. Youngerman, p. 131.

119. Borgers, "A History of Dramatic Production in Princeton, New Jersey/'
p. 95.

120. Ibid.

121. Ibid., pp. 94-95.

122. Garrison, op. cit.

123. See Borgers, p. 96,

124. Morison, Three Centuries at Harvard, p. 426.

125. Garrison, op. cit.

126. L. Guernsey Price, "American Undergraduate Dramatics/* The Bookman,
XVIII (December, 1903), 380.

127. Clara Marie Behringer, "A History of the Theatre in Ann Arbor, Michigan,
from its Beginnings to 1904," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Mich-
igan, 1950, p. 124.

128. Shaw, The University of Michigan, p. 223.

129. Henry Norman, An Account of the Harvard Greek Play (Boston, 1882),
p. x. These details have been taken from this interesting and valuable account of
the play. The remarkable photographic plates of the production are particularly
rewarding for students of the college drama.

130. The Development of Harvard University Since the Inauguration of Presi-
dent Eliot, ed. Samuel Eliot Morison (Cambridge, Mass., 1930), p. 76.

1 131. Norman, p. 13.

132. Domis E. Plugge, History of Greek Play Production in American Colleges
and Universities from 1881 to 1936, Teachers College, Columbia University, Con-
tributions to Education, No. 752 (New York, 1938), p. 5.

133. Ibid., pp. 14, 16.

134. Ibid.

135. Ibid., p. 5.

136. Ibid., pp. 107-108.

137. Ibid.

138. Cf. Morison, Three Centuries at Harvard, p 342; and Shaw, The Univer-
sity of Michigan, p. 222.

139. Behringer, "Theatre in Ann Arbor," pp. 70 f.

140. Knipp and Thomas, The History of Goucher College, pp. 463-464.

141. Arthur Herbert Wilde, Northwestern University, A History (New York,
1905), pp. 84-85.

142. Homrighaus, "Theatrical Production at the University of Illinois," p. 16.

DRAMATICS IN 19TH CENTURY COLLEGES 551

143. Youngerman, "Theatrical Activities: Madison, Wisconsin/' pp. 133-134.

144. The Development of Harvard University, p. 97.

145. Ibid., p. 98,

146. Knipp and Thomas, p. 464. In 1899 Goucher College presented an operetta,
Schneewittchen, the "book" written by Froelicher, the songs by Remicke, of the
Goucher College faculty.

147. Price, "American Undergraduate Dramatics," p. 375.

148. Francis Patrick Cassidy, Catholic College Foundation and Development in
the United States (Washington, D. Q), p. 95.

149. Youngerman, op. cit., p. 107.

150. Ibid., p. 158.

151. Ibid., p 129.

152. Ibid., p. 131.

153. Keith Engar, "Dramatics at the University of Utah," p. 20.

154. Ibid., p. 8.

155. Cole, A Hundred Years of Mount Holyoke College, p. 200.

156. Hewett, Cornell University, A History, I, 140.

157. Start, History of Tufts College, p. 69.

158. Morison, Three Centuries at Harvard, p. 432.

159. Borgers, "Dramatic Production in Princeton," p. 52.

160. Richardson, History of Dartmouth College, II, 644.

161. Shaw, The University of Michigan, p. 222.

162. Youngerman, "Theatrical Activities: Madison, Wisconsin," p. 126.

163. James M. Taylor and Elizabeth H. Haight, Vassar (New York, 1915),
p. 100.

164. Knipp and Thomas, The History of Goucher College, p. 460.

165. Converse, Wellesley College, 1875-1938, p. 153.

166. Plugge, A History of Greek Play Production, p. 16.

167. Converse, p. 154.

168. Plugge, p. 16.

169. Sister Mary Peter Doyle, A Study of Play Selection in Women's Colleges,
Teachers College, Columbia University, Contributions to Education, No. 648 ( New
York, 1935), p. 4.

170. Knipp and Thomas, p. 458.

171. Cole, A Hundred Years of Mount Holyoke College, p. 308.

172. Rogers, Vassar Women, p. 65.

173. Borgers, "Dramatic Production in Princeton," p. 68.

174. Morison, The Development of Harvard University, p. 94.

175. Arthur Hobson Quinn, A History of the American Drama from the Civil
War to the Present Day (New York, 1936), I, 39.

176. Ibid., I, 43.

177. Behringer, "Theatre in Ann Arbor," p. 244.

178. Professor Alfred Hennequin, who taught courses in the French drama at
the University of Michigan, grew so much interested in the theatre that he gave
up his teaching in order to devote himself entirely to professional playwritmg and
play "doctoring." In 1888 Bronson Howard had visited one of Hennequin's courses
in "the principles of dramatic construction." When he returned to the East, Howard
made known his approval in a letter to the New Jork Herald (May 8, 1888). "One
hundred students were present and they evinced the closest possible interest. ... I

. . . learned many things which would be of service to me hereafter If any young

man in the United States seeks a liberal education, desiring to become a dramatic
critic ... or a dramatic author, he has no choice at present but to go to the Uni-
versity of Michigan." (Behringer, "Theatre in Ann Arbor," pp. 166 ff.)

A 4" The Private Theatre Schools

in the Late Nineteenth Century

FRANCIS HODGE

Professional theatre schools to train actors did not appear in this
country until the last quarter of the nineteenth century. They met a
need and provided a fresh impulse at a time when the American theatre
was changing radically and extensively. The study of their origin and
growth is the study of the beginnings of a new theatre and the passing
of the old, for the schools reflected new points of view in theatrical
management and in theories of acting and production. In these early
schools many of the ideas that later came to flower in the university
theatre were first introduced. The schools believed, for example, that
acting can be taught in the classroom. This idea they developed fully
because they were primarily schools of acting and not the all-inclusive
schools of theatre arts we know today.

The story of the first professional acting schools, important as it is,
has not been set down except in isolated fragments. Like many innova-
tions, the theatre school was lightly regarded and the victim of much
buffeting during its early years. Yet as we look back from the vantage
point of today, its significance grows and we recognize the acting
school as one of the important links between nineteenth- and twentieth-
century theatre.

The appearance and growth of acting schools during the 1880's and
1890's was a natural result of a series of changes that sharply altered
the face of the American theatre after the Civil War. For most of the
century the travelling star system, with its emphasis on individual style
and the relative independence of leading actors, had dominated a the-
atre whose backbone was the resident stock company. At first this sys-
tem was thought to be the most efficient method of showing dis-
tinguished actors to many audiences, but it soon developed many evils.
With a succession of visiting stars, the best of whom demanded high
guarantees, local managers found they could make a profit only by

552

THE PRIVATE THEATRE SCHOOLS 553

sacrificing the quality of the resident stock company. By mid-century,
herefore, leading actors began touring with supporting players of
their own choosing, a condition which inevitably led in the 1860's to
the combination system or the hiring of actors for a single play, the
method still employed today. With the combination system New York
became the unquestioned theatrical center because road companies
were made up there.

Most important to the actor in this managerial shift was the loss of
his primary training ground—stock company repertoire. Playing a hand-
:ul of parts during a season, as the actor did under the combination
jystem, was scant training compared to playing the many and various
^oles required by the frequent change of stock bills. Where, then, could
lew actors hope to learn their craft? At the same time, the problem
ivas intensified by the steadily increasing need for low-salaried per-
:ormers to fill road company jobs.1 During the mid-fifties the minstrel
;how and such family plays as Uncle Toms Cabin had proved popular,
tnd large numbers of people gained the taste for and habit of theatre-
*oing; and by the eighties, with the Puritan restraints of the church
argely relaxed, several thousand theatres were in need of a continuous
supply of entertainment. Some method of satisfying this demand with
ictors who had learned at least the rudiments of their trade had to be
levised.

But the advent of the combination system and the growth of the
mdience were not the only important changes in the theatre. The re-
reat behind the proscenium, the appearance and growth of the realistic
:>lay, the new emphasis on ensemble acting, and the new prominence
)f the stage director were slowly shaping a new style of theatre art. The
lew style required a radical change in acting. The traditional method
)f stock actors, of passing interpretation in lines and business from one
generation to another, did not satisfy the demands of the new realism
vhich required the actor to "go to life" for his model. Instead, he needed
o master those fundamentals of acting which he himself as actor-artist
vould find applicable to new roles under new conditions.2

The beginning actor's training in this country before the advent of
brmal schools of instruction was haphazard. Success in the profession
vas won in a contest of the survival of the fittest, and a sound start
)ften depended on the novice's connections with the theatre. If he was
ortunate enough to be born into an acting family, his training literally
>egan while he was still in arms, since he was likely to be carried on the
tage for those scenes in which a baby was called for. Later on as he

554 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

gained the experience of children's parts, he began to pick up the rudi-
ments of stage discipline, and often, as in the case of the Bateman
children and Julia Dean,3 might even receive formal tutoring from his
father or other members of the acting family as they moved from town
to town in an endless series of stock engagements. This constant prac-
tice instilled a basic knowledge of the theatre. Others who were not
born of theatrical families began on the amateur stage and either
worked their way into companies as supers or, on occasion, paid for the
right to appear before an audience on a benefit night. But however he
found his way into a company, the stock actor had to be versatile and
this demanded hard study and rigorous training. Such actors as Edwin
Forrest, John Drew, and Anna Cora Mowatt took lessons in fencing for
general body development, and Forrest studied acrobatics and boxing.4
Months before Mrs. Mowatt made her debut she exercised daily with
dumb-bells "to overcome the constitutional weakness of her arms and
chest"; and for four hours every day she wore a voluminous train, as
Fanny Kemble had before her, "to learn the graceful management of
queenly or classic robes/7 5

In addition to body training many actors sought formal study in elo-
cution to prepare them for a stage life dominated by Shakespeare and
other verse drama.6 Edwin Forrest, James E. Murdoch, and John
McCullough worked with Lemuel G. White, a frustrated actor, so
Lawrence Barrett claims, and an exponent of the Garrick-Kean school; 7
and Murdoch went on to become not only a first-rate actor but a cele-
brated teacher of elocution 8— "one of the few artists," commented
Joseph Jefferson, "who were both professed elocutionists and fine
actors/' 9 Katherine Sinclair and Mary Anderson both studied with
George Vandenhoff,10 a prominent English actor long on the stage in
this country and author of The Aft of Elocution. On the other hand,
many actors, as Murdoch observed, considered the study of elocution
unnecessary and regarded the teachers of the art with a suspicious eye.11
However, the actor did not always have the last word. "Any gump can
learn stage technique and the business of a part," argued vitriolic Alfred
Ayres, a prominent teacher of elocution and acting, "but there is only
now and then a person that can, try as he may, learn to read really
well/' 12

As he advanced in his profession, the actor naturally followed the
English tradition, a tradition requiring that he turn to the models on the
stage and adopt not only conventional interpretations of certain parts
but whatever was effective in acting styles as well. Thus Edwin Booth
copied his father; James H. Hackett imitated the elder Charles Ma-
thews; and Forrest followed Kean.13 Notions about traditional stage
behavior were likely to be derived not only from first-hand observation

THE PRIVATE THEATRE SCHOOLS 555

but by working with others long familiar with the old stage ways.
Charlotte Cushman learned much about Mrs, Siddons' acting from Mr.
Barton, stage manager at the St. Charles in New Orleans,14 and Mrs.
Mowatt studied with W. H. Crisp,15 a leading actor at the Park Theatre
in New York. John Drew during the rehearsal of old plays "always
talked over" both the play and his part with his mother because "she
knew the stage business which had been tried and found successful." 1C
But this traditional hand-me-down system of playing led to trite and
shallow acting unless dominated by an actor's cultural and intellectual
equipment. "Original conception grafted upon knowledge of the past
is the true method of evolution in stage art," argued John McCullough.17
He was supported by Helena Modjeska who maintained that "the gen-
eral cultivation of the mind, the development of all the intellectual'
faculties, the knowledge of how to think are more essential to the actor
than mere professional instruction." 18

The stock company, of course, was the primary training ground. One
writer estimates that a competent beginner could play as many as one
hundred bit roles in a season.19 Thus there was opportunity to establish
essential disciplines; yet the actor was left to his own devices, and he
perished or survived on what he could pick up from more experienced
actors. Olive Logan tells a story about a famous American actor who
was distracted at rehearsal by the inattention of a young member of
the cast with whom he was playing a scene. "My young friend,'7 he
said, "if you desire to progress in your profession, you should be more
attentive. A rehearsal is your school, sir, and inattention to what's going
on on the stage, while you are engaged in the scene, is wrong, sir." 20

If the run-of-the-mill stock company was a haphazard training
ground, the same could not be said of a few companies like Augustin
Daly's, where training the apprentice actors was a primary occupation
of the master himself. Intensely interested in the performance of the
ensemble, Daly demanded thorough rehearsal with meticulous atten-
tion to detail. William Dean Howells, a leader in the late-century move-
ment to raise American artistic standards, labeled Daly's theatre "the
nearest approach to a national school of acting/' 21 while John Rankin
Towse called it "the only true school of acting in the United States." 22
Others thought it "the most wonderful school of acting," 23 and Daly a
great teacher;24 it was "a school from which many actors graduated to
become stars," 25 a "rare schooling," 26 and a "thespian academy." 27
Daly not only provided the basic nourishment for beginning actors, but
he also furnished the salt to season the work of his advanced per-
formers. No one was spared during rehearsal period, and many an
actor looked back on his Daly apprenticeship as the cornerstone of his
later success.

556 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

Daly's stage direction, however, was the exception. Other important
companies, although lacking the guidance o£ such an expert teacher,28
worked out limited training programs that included occasional classes
in fencing, dancing, walking, and grace.29 But formal schooling in the
ordinary stock company never went beyond these techniques, and in
most of them the rehearsal period was the usual time for any brief
instruction considered necessary. Most of the time the beginner worked
alone, and what he could not manage singlehanded simply went un-
done. Playing too many parts in a season often resulted in blindness to
error, resort to expediency, and reliance on old tricks which meant
both poor playing and poor training. Undoubtedly such a system was
beneficial to some players, but it was all too frequently detrimental to
others. Minnie Maddem Fiske decided that stock training might help
the beginning actor only if he kept telling himself, "This is all wrong,
wrong, wrong."

With this background in mind it is not hard to understand the con-
troversy that arose among professional actors of standing when the
idea of the formal school of acting was first broached. The older meth-
ods of learning acting— primarily the "doing" method—had convinced
many professional actors that in spite of its evils, it was the only possible
way for a beginner to learn his trade. Acting simply could not be
taught in the classroom. During the seventy years or so which have
elapsed since the early efforts of Steele MacKaye, Franklin Sargent,
and other school advocates, we have so wholeheartedly accepted the
concept that it can be taught and proved it by the widespread growth
and general acceptance of theatre schools that we tend to underesti-
mate the strong feeling against the school idea in its first years. But in
the 1880's such responsible actors as Jefferson, Barrett, Boucicault, and
Modjeska warmly argued the question.

"Could acting be learned from others, or must it be self-acquired?"
was a problem for which there was no ready answer except the preju-
dice of personal experience. "The study of gesture and elocution, if
taken in homeopathic doses and with great care, may be of service,"
was Joseph Jefferson's guarded opinion.30 But Lawrence Barrett— who
later, ironically enough, performed enthusiastically with apprentice
actors at the New York School of Acting 31— did not beg the question;
"No school of elocution, no training outside the theatre can I regard as
at all valuable. All teachers of elocution come to the theatre for their
models; why should the pupil go out of it for his? . . . The theatre is the
school of the actor." 32 Maggie Mitchell was in full agreement "I do

not tittink novices reap any practical benefit from private lessons

The stage itself is the best, in fact, the only school for actresses Mere

oral advice, or training in elocution or gesture counts for very little." 33

THE PBIVATE THEATRE SCHOOLS 557

Helena Modjeska, on the other hand, thought that something could be
learned from a properly chosen private instructor although the "best
school of acting seems to me to be the stage itself/' 34 and with the latter
opinion William Warren found easy agreement. One writer estimated
that nine out of ten actors would tell beginners that the stage was the
best teacher.35 Another damned elocution as "injurious'' to dramatic
students, arguing that "criticism and the stage director have made more
competent actors and actresses in a day than elocution schools will put
forth in a lifetime." 36 In a pro and con discussion of the question con-
ducted by The Idler Magazine in 1893 and printed under the title,
"Shall We Have a Dramatic Academy," 37 many were still in substan-
tial agreement with a committee composed of Henry Irving, Hermann
Vezin, Henry Neville, Dion Boucicault, and others who, a decade
earlier, had decided that "acting could be taught only on the stage, as
swimming can be taught in the water, and riding on horseback. All
chamber tuition is worthless." 38

On the other hand to refute the often-voiced negative opinion was
the positive support for the school idea exemplified in the Paris Con-
servatoire.39 Over many decades this celebrated institution had trained
leading actors for the French stage, and, with its reorganization in the
1870's, the theatre "department" won new prominence. Such well-
known actors as Regnier, Got, Delaunay, and Worms were regular
members of the faculty. Others such as Constant Coquelin continually
supported it and praised its merits. "Whatever success I have had as an
actor I attribute entirely to training," wrote the first actor of the French
stage.40 "Every detail of my performance and delivery is the result of
training, study and preparation. I leave nothing to inspiration. . . . One
has always the need of a conservatoire. All art has need of a school.
Every artist must be schooled. There is no art possible without train-
ing." Here was the positive rebuttal to those who maintained that acting
could not be taught. "The Conservatoire gives the grammar of the art—
the orthography of acting, if one may say so— the ABC, in short,"
argued Coquelin. "The period that the pupil passes in its walls is a
period of germination. ... It gives style, and without style there is no
good acting." In 1900 Bronson Howard would argue that the Conser-
vatoire, although excellent of its kind, was only a small "department"
operating on the "old system of teaching by great masters individually,"
and that America had established the first fully organized school of
acting in the world.41 But in his eagerness to claim the best, Howard
overlooked the influence of the Paris institution on MacKaye and
others when they were trying their early experiments in the seventies
and eighties. The proof of its success was apparent in its steady contri-
bution to the French stage.

558 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

This was the background and the climate of opinion, then, out of
which the first formal schools of acting were born in America.

Since early experimentation and practice reveal basic ideas and
frequently the innovating mind— first the artist, then the organizers,
observed Gordon Craig— a look at the beginnings of theatre schools in
this country is significant. But beginnings are often difficult to trace,
and the problems here are the usual ones— a scarcity of readily acces-
sible records, claims and counterclaims, and confusion in terminology,
of which the most pertinent to our discussion is what was meant by
"school." The story must be pieced together from many sources.

There is little doubt that Steele MacKaye was the most important
single influence in the establishment of formal actor training m this
country.42 He is so frequently cited as an innovator in theatrical art, an
inventor of machines, as a playwright, and as a theatre manager, that
it is easy to forget that at the beginning of his career he was an actor,
and that the study and practice of acting was his first important work
in the theatre. In the late sixties, MacKaye came under the tutorship of
Frangois Delsarte 43 and soon reached such wholehearted agreement
with the French master's theories of expression that spreading his own
interpretation of these theories became an extraordinary mission. What-
ever MacKaye personally may have accomplished in his study of Del-
sartism or whether he fully understood it is open to debate, but clearly
he was a teacher who could inspire others beyond their ordinary capac-
ities. Within a few years he had won a number of important students to
Delsartism, as he interpreted it, and had begun a series of experiments
in classroom teaching that were to reach a climax in the Lyceum Acting
School of 1884.

In his earliest writings and lectures after his contact with both Del-
sarte and the Paris Conservatoire, MacKaye asserted that a theatre
school was essential to the foundation of a responsible art theatre. He
began his campaign late in 1871 with the publication of a prospectus
setting forth his plans to open an acting school at the St. James Theatre,
his first venture in theatrical management44 He argued:

There can never be a healthy vital drama until there is a safe and sure
school where the dramatic aspirant may go as a student, and where he will be
guaranteed the best social and moral associations, as well as the most
thorough practical and aesthetic preparation for the profession.

He further claimed to be the "only living pupil in this country7' of
Frangois Delsarte, whose teachings were to be followed. How MacKaye

THE PRIVATE THEATRE SCHOOLS 559

conducted this first school has not been recorded. It lasted only a few
months, and apparently there was little enrollment beyond the members
of his acting company. But probably as stage manager he gave instruc-
tion while directing plays, and, in addition, arranged special tutoring
sessions. Despite its short life, the St. James project was an important
step toward that goal which MacKaye had hoped for in the prospectus:
the founding of a Free Conservatory of Art.

Continuing to teach privately and to lecture wherever he could,
MacKaye launched a second enterprise in 1877, the School of Expres-
sion on Union Square. In his prospectus for this project, MacKaye
again pleaded for a theatre that would fulfill its inherent function of
"instructing and elevating society beyond merely entertaining it." But
a new worry was evident. He was seriously concerned over the decline
of acting, the life blood of dramatic art; he feared that its decline had
led to a theatre relying on "sensational stage attire rather than the
dramatic ability of the company." As a remedy he urged the training
of disciplined actors to replace those dilettantes who "threatened the
deterioration of the stage." As in the St. James "school," MacKaye was
again the sole teacher. His studio was equipped with a small stage
where students could perform the exercises of Delsartian instruction.
This system of training, MacKaye defended thus:

[It] develops the student's faculty to feel by a scientific exposition of the
natural facts and laws governing the manifestation of human emotions. It
develops his faculty to express by thorough discipline in practical Pantomime,
Stage Business, and Vocal Gymnastics. Thus it 'aims to equalize and increase
the activity of these complementary faculties, ultimately rendering their co-
operation so complete and instructive as to endow the art of the actor with the
crowning characteristic of genius,— spontaneity.45

Of the several students actively engaged on the stage who sought Mac-
Kaye's help at this time, the best known was John McCullough who
declared that MacKaye 'lias taught me more in three months, than I
could have learned otherwise in twenty years, and I don't care who
knows it." 46

Like his first venture at the St. James, the Union Square School was
of brief duration. But MacKaye soon took over the management of the
Madison Square Theatre, where he hoped "to show in his actors the
result of training according to the ideas of Delsarte." 47 In this new
project MacKaye had a first-rate theatre at his command for the first
time. But the conservative Mallorys, the Madison Square owners,
restricted his activities, and he withdrew to head a most ambitious
undertaking, the new Lyceum Theatre. MacKaye's management of this
house lasted but a few months, yet his work here was the most signifi-
cant of all his school ventures, for it saw the founding of the Lyceum

560 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

Acting School which has survived to the present day as the American
Academy of Dramatic Arts.

The Lyceum Theatre School was a fitting climax to MacKaye's
efforts. For a decade he had worked persistently and had attracted only
minor interest and few converts. But the Lyceum School apparently
struck at an opportune moment and was conceived in a size calculated
to excite public attention. Whether Franklin Sargent in the Spring of
1884 first broached the idea of an amateur dramatic academy to Mac-
Kaye,48 as Sargent claimed, and MacKaye quickly embraced the plan,
found financial support, and moved forward with a big scheme of pro-
fessional dimensions, need not be settled here.49 The fact remains that
it was obviously MacKaye as the head of the Lyceum project who gave
it vital leadership and staunch purpose. Here was MacKaye's art the-
atre almost fully realized. No other manager in the American theatre
was able to boast of such complete organization and facilities as the
Lyceum, with its special stage devices, quality stock company, and
theatre school to train its potential personnel. Since MacKaye's best
efforts as a stage director had been realized where he could work with a
permanent acting company subject to his daily supervision and instruc-
tion, it was only natural that he should conceive of a school capable of
fulfilling these artistic demands. His experience with Regnier and the
Theatre Frangais several years before had taught him the value of
an apprentice training program in conjunction with a professional
company.

The school project also appeared to be a sound business proposition.
Charles Frohman, the Lyceum's business manager, had set up a tuition
plan that would permit the school to pay its own way, and in spite of
an initial, limited enrollment of one hundred students, $32,000 was
immediately made available to the Lyceum treasury. This income was,
of course, earmarked for instructional salaries; but since it became part
of the theatre's operating income, it could be diverted to other needs of
the theatre. Within a few weeks after the school had opened, the tuition
money became a subject of contention: MacKaye and Frohman were
accused of misappropriating these funds into other departments of the
theatre and in this way preventing the prompt payment of the faculty
and the proper administration of school activity. It is true that the
opening of the theatre had been delayed, a circumstance which placed
heavy financial burdens on the management, and this fact undoubtedly
gave support to the strong suspicions voiced in the attack. Both Mac-
Kaye and Frohman vigorously denied the charge.50 Despite this mis-
understanding, the venture revealed the possibility of co-ordinating
school and theatre financial arrangements. In addition, the school was
a most practical investment in the future. Here was a way of supplying

THE PRIVATE THEATRE SCHOOLS 561

the low-salaried apprentice actors needed for the Lyceum's road com-
panies as well as for the bit parts in the New York productions.

Unfortunately profits cannot wait on artistry. Within a few months
after the School had opened, MacKaye, pushed to the wall by unfore-
seen difficulties in getting the new plant into operation, was forced to
abandon the management of the Lyceum and revert to private teach-
ing as a means of livelihood. Reorganized, the Lyceum School came
under the sole control of Franklin Sargent, the Harvard-educated
teacher and organizer whom MacKaye had won as a Delsarte convert
in 1878 51 while delivering a lecture at the Boston School of Oratory.52

Although MacKaye had headed the Lyceum project and undoubtedly
had much to do with determining the size and scope of the school,
Sargent had been hired to administer the practical details of training
and had made some of the advance arrangements.53 In the actual
instruction, Sargent supervised classroom activity while MacKaye
worked with the student actors in stage productions. Sargent had
brought to the Lyceum job a backlog of experience from the Madison
Square Theatre where he had gone in 1882 as a coach to help prepare
new actors for the many road companies dispatched by that organiza-
tion under MacKaye's management. With MacKaye's departure from
the Lyceum, Sargent inherited not only complete control of the school
but also one of its chief instructors, David Belasco, who had also fol-
lowed MacKaye from the Madison Square to the Lyceum. If its reigning
genius was lost, the school had fallen into careful and respectful hands,
for Sargent's subsequent record as director is a testimonial to his artistic
integrity and strong purpose.

Ill

Although MacKaye's Lyceum Theatre School was the first formal
school that could boast a varied curriculum, a fair-sized faculty, and a
large student enrollment, spot sources of information, such as periodical
advertisements and directories,54 reveal that others were making
attempts to offer dramatic training. In New York the Lawrence School
of Acting claimed a beginning in 1869. Undoubtedly this school's early
emphasis was chiefly on elocution, although by 1892 acting was the
dominant study. In 1878 the New York Conservatory of Music was
advertised as a "School of Elocution, Oratory and Dramatic Action."
The following year saw the founding of James E. Frobisher's College of
Oratory and Acting where teaching was based on its founder's text,
Acting and Oratory. In Boston, a School of Elocution and Dramatic
Art was active as early as 1867. The endorsements of Edwin Booth,
William Warren, and Joseph Jefferson were claimed for Rachel Noah's

562 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

Petersilea Academy (1871), and the Delsarte School of Oratory and
Dramatic Art ( 1881 ) on Tremont Street offered "direct stage practice
under professional management." But the rapid growth in number and
the size of enrollment of dramatic schools waited on the success of the
Lyceum venture. During the late 1880's and early 1890's a rash of
schools appeared— one or two of which, like the Lyceum, have survived
until the present day, a few more lasted a brief span of years, but most
led short lives as one-man studios rather than full-scale schools of
acting.

Among the "schools" opening in New York between 1884 and 1900
were: The Alviene Master School of the Theatre (1894); Mrs. D. P.
Bower's School of Dramatic Instruction (c. 1892); The Empire Theatre
Dramatic School (1893); The Grand Conservatory of Music of the City
of New York (c. 1887); Rose Eytinge's Only School of Acting (c. 1892);
the E. J. Henley Dramatic School (c. 1897); the Madison Square School
of Instruction (1887); the McKee Rankin School of Acting (c, 1897);
National Dramatic Conservatory (c. 1899); Proctor's School of Acting
(c. 1892); and The Stanhope-Wheatcroft Dramatic School (1897).

In Chicago, among others, were the American School of Dramatic
Art (c. 1892) directed by E. Z. Vezina, and the Chicago School of
Acting (c. 1892) located in the Schiller Theatre Building, with Hart
Conway as director. Boston could boast not only the schools mentioned
earlier, but the Bijou Dramatic School (c. 1885); Bickford's School of
Elocution, Oratory and Dramatic Art; the Bliss School of Elocution;
the Boston School of Acting; and probably the best known of the group
because of its survival to the present day— the Curry School of Expres-
sion, now Curry College. Philadelphia had the Edwin Forrest School
(c. 1899), and was near enough to New York to be solicited by an
occasional agent for the American Academy. In St. Louis, Grahame's
Stage School and Dramatic Agency (1866) advertised frequently, and
in Cincinnati the Schuster-Martin School (1900) offered training for
the actor.

Undoubtedly there were many other schools, but this list shows not
only how rapidly formal instruction in acting had spread but also how
it was administered. Many of these schools were privately operated,
but a number followed the Lyceum tradition and were closely asso-
ciated with producing theatres. In New York these included such impor-
tant theatres as the Empire, Proctor's, the Madison Square, the Murray
Hill (McKee Eankin), and Palmer's (Mrs. Bowers School).

A large group of private instructors also promised in their advertise-
ments the best tutelage. A few like Ada Dow, the teacher of Julia
Marlowe, were professional actors and offered an extensive course of
training, including gymnastics, voice culture, elocution, stage deport-

THE PRIVATE THEATRE SCHOOLS 563

merit, and, most important of all, analysis and special work on many
plays that could equip the student with a repertoire.55 Among others
whose names may possibly be remembered were Emma Waller, Harry
Pepper, Rosa Rand, and Parson Price. Perhaps the best known of the
group in New York was Alfred Ayres 5G who had worked professionally
with Steele MacKaye and later at the Lyceum School where he had
come into conflict with Sargent over teaching methods. The author of
Actors and Acting (1894) and an earlier volume titled The Essentials
of Elocution (1886), Ayres early lost faith in dramatic schools because,
so he claimed, they failed to pay attention to stage delivery which was
the very core of acting to his way of thinking. Adept at straight talk,
that often received publication in the New York Dramatic Mirror, he
blasted the schools at every opportunity. "A candidate for the stage
might profit quite as much by being a member of an amateur dramatic
association as by being a pupil of any one of these so-called schools, a
good half of which are mere confidence schemes," he wrote.57 If Ayres's
ranting made him sound something like a sorehead, undoubtedly he
was only one of many who saw that the art of elocution and the elocu-
tion teacher would play an even smaller role in actor training as the new
schools with their specialized curricula found favor. Yet the elocu-
tionists still played a direct part in the training of professional actors,
and in every city throughout the country their special services were
available.

A significant number of stage "names" were associated with the
schools. A few of these early teachers such as David Belasco,58 Henry
DeMille, Rachel Crothers, and May Robson are still weU remembered.
Among others were George Cable, George LeSoir, F. F. Mackay,
Madame Michels, Rosa Rand, McKee Rankin, Adeline Stanhope, Nel-
son Wheatcroft, Fred Williams, and William Seymour. Not only had
Belasco, Williams, and Seymour been actors before they undertook the
responsibilities of the classroom, but they were also successful stage
managers. Wheatcroft, F. F. Mackay, DeMille, McKee Rankin, and
Miss Stanhope were recognized actors of standing. And all of them, like
Steele MacKaye, brought through-the-mill backgrounds to their work.
Of the many instructors connected with these early schools, Franklin
Sargent, although not a professional actor, looms next to Steele Mac-
Kaye as the most important. His integrity, his scholarship, his devotion
to teaching as an art? his conviction that theatre had a higher mission
than mere entertainment and its artists a special obligation to society,
gave a responsible leadership to this new approach to actor training. To
Sargent, the development of personal character was essential in making
the artist, and proper instruction was "condensed experience plus
disciplined faculties and an established art creed." 59

564 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

What theories and methods of acting were taught in the schools?
What methods of teaching were used? To answer such questions only
a limited amount of firsthand material is readily available.60 It must
be carefully sifted, for it is tinged with the strong idealism of those who
believed that classroom training was superior to the haphazard stock
company method.

At the outset, the classroom approach implied not only that acting
could be taught profitably in the group, but that the student would learn
more quickly under the watchful eye of a trained instructor. As one
school head who had been brought up in the hard knocks of stock
company training put it, "I know that a year in a dramatic school will
teach the young aspirant for stage honors what it took me at least ten
years to learn." 61 Teaching had its first impetus from MacKaye, an
apostle of the Delsarte system, and this system, variously interpreted
and adopted, permeated the schools of acting. Of MacKaye's many
pupils who spread Delsartism— Lewis Monroe, S. S. Curry, Gene-
vieve Stebbins, and Franklin Sargent— Sargent was undoubtedly the
most important. As head of the American Academy, he could well
claim by 1900 to have provided, either from his staff or student body,
the leadership of most of the important dramatic schools in the country.
The line from Delsarte was direct, even if the theories and practice
were watered down and modified over the years. The claim in 1887 that
"there is hardly a professor of note in America who does not include
Delsarte's principles in his teachings" 62 was probably exaggerated, but
it is clear that after MacKaye's first introduction of this new approach
to acting, the Delsarte system— or what was called that— enjoyed a
wider and wider vogue.

Helena Modjeska said that imitation is the "worst method in art as it
kills the individual creative power, and in most cases, the imitators only
follow the peculiar failings of their model." 63 Franklin Sargent main-
tained that acting could not be properly taught by imitation or coach-
ing. "No teaching can give anything— it can only draw out and en-
courage or discourage tendencies in the pupil," he argued.64 Had their
worlds crossed intimately, he might have been talking in perfect agree-
ment with Joseph Jefferson, who thought that dramatic instructors fell
into the error of teaching too much. This celebrated actor reasoned
that the teacher could best learn what to teach only by first allowing
the novice to exhibit his special quality and thus set his own course of
instruction. Dogma "pounded" into the actor could only result in
smothering innate ability.65 Like Jefferson's, Sargent's method was one
of creative growth in which the actor would slowly overcome his weak-

THE PKIVATE THEATRE SCHOOLS 565

nesses and gain eventual command of himself as an expressive instru-
ment.

It was inevitable that the new ideas should come into conflict with
the old. Scarcely four months after the founding of the Lyceum School,
Sargent dismissed such qualified instructors as Madame Michels, Mrs.
George Vandenhoff, Max Freeman, William Seymour, and Professor
Alfred Ayres on the charge that they were "old-fashioned" in their
methods.66 "The Delsarte system was the foundation, and no departure
will be recognized/' Sargent wrote in defense of the dismissals. Yet,
at the same time, he retained David Belasco who was no Delsartian.
Sargent often argued that stage managers were the best teachers of
acting, and undoubtedly he saw something unusual in Belasco, regard-
less of his notions on acting or his methods in the classroom. Actors
made very poor teachers, Sargent insisted, because they could not
easily devote themselves exclusively to the needs of the student. Teach-
ing required great humility and was a special art in its own right. A
stage manager was the true servant to creative production and was
thus well qualified to guide the beginner.

Methods of instruction were not the only problems facing the new
schools. What should be taught was even more important and from the
first received the most careful attention. A wide curriculum of special-
ized studies was soon developed. When the Lyceum School opened its
first session in October, 1884, course work included training of the body,
the art of mute expression or pantomime, the training of the voice, the
art of vocal expression, the art of imitation or mimicry, the study and
understanding of plays and dramatic situations and effects, the study
of character, and practical lessons in acting.67 In 1886 special studies
added were: "Action, Diction, Stage Effect, Make-up, Elementary
Dance and Ballet Steps, Fencing and Lectures on all subjects relating
to the culture and improvement of actors." 6S In the nineties, the study
program involved two terms of six months each, with the first compris-
ing technical training in all basic essentials, and the second advanced
classroom study and the production of plays.69 First term work covered
three major areas: Action, Diction, and Stage Work, with training in
Action consisting of Physical Training, Dancing, Fencing, Pantomime,
and Life Studies, while Diction instruction followed the special sub-
jects of Vocal Training, Phonetics, Elements of Vocal Expression, Eng-
lish Language, and Dramatic Literature. Completing the Junior course
was Stage Work, which introduced the student to Stage Mechanics,
Make-up, Costuming and Art Decoration, Stage Business, Stage Re-
hearsals, and Complete Performances. Before entering the Senior year
and the Academy Stock Company, the student had to pass a compre-
hensive examination. Once over this hurdle, he continued class study in

566 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

several areas although the primary emphasis was placed on the study
of roles and on performance. Among the important courses that con-
tinued during the two-term period was Life Study, with its emphasis on
"going to life" for material to use in creating a realistic representation.
This was considered basic study, for if the author drew from life,
"should not the actor study that life also, that he may the more justly
portray it?" 70 Bronson Howard commented:

All the students belong to this class. They are expected to observe their fel-
low human beings and afterwards to illustrate their actions and speech on a
platform in the school: beginning with the mere movement of the hand, or
head, or other parts of the body, under the various circumstances of every-day
[sic] life; then constructing little scenes for themselves, based on their own
observation, even bits of unwritten plays, after they have become sufficiently
skilled in the minor work.71

Since the plays of Ibsen, Maeterlinck, and other modernists were per-
formed by the students, the new acting approach to them was necessary.

In contrast to this elaborate curriculum, Nelson Wheatcroft, Director
of the Empire Theatre Dramatic School, which in 1899 was to be
merged with Sargent's Academy, rather pointedly stated in his prospec-
tus that "energies will not be diffused by attention to extraneous sub-
jects, but will be devoted only to that work which is constantly in
requisition on the stage itself." What he meant by this is not clear.
Was he implying that other schools, the Academy for instance, were
confusing the student with irrelevant material in teaching technique
through a system of acting like Delsartism? More than likely, stock-
actor Wheatcroft was an adherent of the traditional hand-me-down
method of actor training and could see no good in the new approach.
At any rate, the Empire School was much smaller than Sargent's Amer-
ican Academy and could not boast the faculty necessary for an extensive
curriculum. Three or four instructors taught Modern Dramatic Art,
which, of course, could be very inclusive but probably involved the
acting of recent plays, Shakespeare and the classics, Melodrama and
Comedy.72 In addition, every two weeks a criticism class was held, at
which the students gave a resume of their work before the entire school
and received the criticism of faculty and students. For a small enroll-
ment this curriculum might be quite satisfactory, and it certainly was a
practical method for preparing the beginning actor in a short time.

In sharp contrast to these curricula with their specific interest in
active production was the more conservative academic approach exem-
plified by the Curry School in Boston.73 Make-up, costume, and busi-
ness were ignored, and stage properties and scenery were reduced to
an absolute minimum. Professor Curry, unlike others who operated in
close association with producing theatres, considered the environment

THE PRIVATE THEATRE SCHOOLS 567

of stage life and all theatrical equipment harmful. "The pupil must
imagine all; must concentrate his mind exclusively upon characteriza-
tion and the dramatic situation." And so the curriculum was said to be
based on that of the Paris Conservatoire with "rigorous training in
aesthetic gymnastics, movements which are modifications of the so-called
Delsartean system, slow and thorough voice-building, and a general
acquaintance with English, French, and German dramatic and poetic
literature." On play days the pupils sat in a circle around the stage to
watch their classmates perform.

Curry did not stand alone in this point of view. Professor Ayres of
New York might well have been bred in the same school, for he took
pride in advertising: "No stage with which to amuse the pupil and
squander his time. Begin with rehearsals when trees begin to grow at
the top; when architects begin with the house and follow with the
foundation." How much like a direct attack on Sargent's methods the
Ayres's advertisements sound: "He that begins with rehearsal never
gets far," he cautions, and then ends with a barbed warning: "Essentials
are never taught by those who do not themselves know them." 74:

The classroom curriculum in most schools, however, was not all-
important. If Curry and Ayres frowned on the trappings of the stage,
other school directors certainly did not. Public performance was often
part of the over-all training, and occasionally the novice actors appeared
with established members of the profession. Not only were beginners
given a chance to be seen by managers, but undoubtedly the public
performances were intended to substitute for those practical expe-
riences the beginning actor would have received under the old stock
company system. MacKaye had this specifically in mind when plan-
ning the Lyceum School. As an adjunct to the theatre, the classroom
was the training ground for future members of the performing com-
panies, and MacKaye, as author-director, worked with the student
bit-players in the first Lyceum offering— his own play, Dakolar. From
that point on, students of the Lyceum School were given regular per-
formance opportunities, and the production of high quality plays
became the policy. Franklin Sargent shortly won fame as the outstand-
ing producer of Greek plays in this country. During these early years
he also staged Maeterlinck's The Blind; a program including The
Intruder, choruses from Antigone., and three scenes from Oedipus;
Moliere's Les Frecieuses Ridicules and Tartuffe; Congreve's Love for
Love; and a mixed evening that included Royall Tyler's The Contrast
and Rinniccini's Euridice. Sophocles* Electra was given in collaboration
with David Belasco and Henry DeMille. And to keep pace with the
moderns, Ibsen's Pillars of Society, Musset's Un Caprice, and Shaw's
The Man of Destiny were given full scale stagings.75 At the Empire

568 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

School, Nelson Wheatcroft made a regular practice of presenting stu-
dents on the stage of the Empire Theatre in bills of short plays, many
of which were being performed for the first time. A few years later,
Mrs. Wheatcroft, as head of her own school, gave acting-instructor
Rachel Crothers the opportunity not only to "jump in and act a part''
but also to present her own original plays.76

Although information concerning early curricula is sketchy, it is
probably representative. There were differences, of course, in acting
theory and how it should be taught, and the size of any curriculum was
often dependent on the number of teachers who could be hired and
the quality of instruction they could give. One important point, how-
ever, must not be overlooked: the early theatre schools were by need
and intention acting schools. The inclusion of "Stage Work" in the
curriculum at the Academy was more the exception than the rule, for
technical production, as it is taught today in our theatre schools, had
gained little attention. Thus acting— with its general literary background
as well as its specific technical aspects— was the dominant study.

By the turn of the century, the theatre schools were firmly estab-
lished. The largest and best-known ones were in New York, because it
was the center of professional production, but nearly every important
city had one or more. The American Academy alone had graduated over
three hundred students.77 Graduates of the schools were finding em-
ployment in the theatre. Franklin Fyles, writing in 1899, declared that
not only were managers no longer prejudiced against the school-
trained actors but actually preferred them to actors equipped only with
haphazard experience acquired on the stage.78

Clearly the schools satisfied a vital need. Although more and more
actors were needed for steadily increasing theatrical production, the
long run was replacing the repertory system, and the combination com-
pany was rapidly replacing the resident stock company which had
always been the training ground for the beginning actor. By 1900 the
theatre school had largely assumed that function of the stock company.

Other factors appear to have contributed to the rise of the theatre
school and to have given it the particular character it eventually took.
The new realistic drama emphasized the ensemble rather than indi-
vidual virtuosity, and it required that the actor go to life for his models
rather than to stage tradition as represented by the characterizations
of established actors. The techniques required for ensemble acting and
for creating from life could be more effectively taught in the classroom
than in actual production. In some schools, the new techniques were

THE PRIVATE THEATRE SCHOOLS 569

taught from the beginning; in others the old method of individual
tutorship in traditional stage business continued. The curricula re-
flected not only the changing style in acting but also the change from
the conception of theatre art as primarily the art of acting to the
conception of theatre art as the art of production.

Thus the theatre schools appeared, grew, and flourished in America
as a result of a fundamental change in the organization of the American
theatre, and they took their particular form as a result of fundamental
changes in the style of production and in the conception of theatre art
in general.

Notes

1. George Blumenthal, My Sixty Years in Show Business (New York, 1936),
p. 11.

2. Bernard Shaw, Dramatic Opinions and Essays (New York, 1907), I, 206.

3. Olive Logan, The Mimic World (Philadelphia, 1870), pp. 32, 47.

4. William R. Alger, Life of Edwin Forrest (Philadelphia, 1877), I, 158,
John Drew, My Years on the Stage (New York, 1922), p. 9; Anna Cora Mowatt,
Autobiography of an Actress (Boston, 1853), p. 219.

5. Logan, pp. 41-42.

6. For a brief listing see Alfred Ayres, Acting and Actors (New York, 1894),
p. 148.

7. Lawrence Barrett, Edwin Forrest (Boston, 1881), p. 14.

8. For a discussion of his theory and observations on the elocutionary art see
James E. Murdoch, The Stage or Recollections of Actors and Acting (Philadelphia,
1880). Also see Mary Margaret Robb, "Rise of the Elocutionary Movement and its
Theorists," in this volume.

9. Joseph Jefferson, Autobiography (New York, 1889), p. 152.

10. Mary Aoiderson gives a brief descnption of a lesson with Vandenhoff in her
autobiography, A Few Memories (New York, 1876), pp. 43-44.

11. Murdoch, p. 273.

12. Ayres, p. 145.

13. Actors and Actresses of Great Britain and the United States: Macready and
Forrest; and Their Contemporaries, ed. Brander Matthews and Laurence Hutton
(New York, 1886), p. 272.

14. Murdoch, pp. 237-238.

15. Mowatt, pp. 218, 383.

16. Drew, p. 17.

17. Joseph Jefferson and others, "Success on the Stage," North American Review,
135 (1882), 581. Hereafter cited as "Success on the Stage."

18. Ibid., p. 583.

19. For a detailed discussion of training at the Boston Museum, as well as a
general evaluation of the stock company as a "school," see Edward Mammen, The
Old Stock Company School of Acting (Boston, 1945). David Belasco thought this
discipline so valuable that in training Mrs. Leslie Carter for the stage, he insisted
that she learn twenty-eight roles in the same manner she would have, had she been
a stock company actress. For a detailed account of his training of this actress see
David Belasco, The Theatre Through the Stage Door (New York, 1919), pp. 95 ff.

20. Logan, p. 67.

21. Augustin Daly Scrapbooks, Robinson Locke Collection, New York Public
Library.

22. J. Rankin Towse and George Parsons Lathrop, "An American School of
Dramatic Art," Century Magazine, LVI (1898), 261-275.

570 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

23. Ibid.

24. Frederick Bond, "Casino Comedian's Reminiscences of Augustin Daly," New
York Evening Telegram, July 31, 1907.

25. Gustav Kobbe, "Augustin Daly and his Life Work," Cosmopolitan, XXVII
(1899), 413.

26. Deshler Welch, "Augustin Daly— Dramatic Dictator," Booklovers, III ( 1904)
495.

27. Owen Barry, "The Augustin Daly Alumni," Green Book, VIII (1912)
890-896.

28. William Seymour at the Boston Museum also has been lauded as an expert
teacher of beginning actors. See Mammen, pp. 60-61.

29. Ibid, p. 49.

30. "Success on the Stage," p. 586.

31. Philip G. Hubert, Jr., "New York's Lyceum School for Actors," Lippincott's
Magazine, XXXV (1885), 483-488.

32. "Success on the Stage."

33. Ibid.

34. Ibid.

35. Cora Maynard, "Art and the Actor," North American Review, CXLVII
(1888), 175.

36. F. H. McMechan, "Acting versus Elocution," The Theatre, I (1901),
17-19.

37. "Shall We Have a Dramatic Academy," The Idler Magazine, III (1893),
568-576. For further discussion see "A School of Dramatic Art," The Specta-
tor, LXVI (1891), 169-170, Hamilton Aide, "A Dramatic School," The Theatre,
V (1882), 73-76; Hamilton Aide, "A New Stage Doctrine," Nineteenth Cen-
tury, XXXIV (1893), 452-457.

38. Dion Boucicault, "My Pupils," Clipping File, New York Public Library
Theatre Collection.

39. For a detailed account of work at the Conservatoire together with a brief
review of its past history see A. Strobel, "A Visit to the Pans Conservatory," The
Theatre, IV (1888), 444-449.

40. "A British Dramatic Academy— Interview with M. Coquehn the Elder," The
Daily Graphic, January 21, 1891.

41. Bronson Howard, "Our Schools for the Stage," Century Magazine, LXI
(1900), 28-37.

42. The best account of MacKaye's participation in the school movement is, of
course, in the biography by his son, Percy MacKaye, Epoch, 2 vols. (New York
1927).

43. For a discussion of "MacKaye and the Delsartian Influence," see the essay
under that title by Claude Shaver, in this volume.

44. This brief pamphlet bears the title, "A Plea for a Free School of Dramatic
Art." A copy of the pamphlet is available in the New York Public Library. For
mention of the St. James opening, see George Odell, Annals of the New York
Stage (New York, 1927-1949), IX, 194.

45. MacKaye, I, 268.

46. Ibid., 271.

47. Werner's Directory of Elocutionists, Readers and Lecturers, ed. Elsie M
Wilbor (New York, 1887), p. 259.

48. According to Blumenthal, p. 11, Sargent had suggested that a school be
established at the Madison Square Theatre where he was employed as a training
coach for road company actors in 1882-1883.

49. Percy MacKaye discusses this significant controversy in Epoch, I, 463. He
maintains, and perhaps justifiably, that his father never received full credit for his
important work in founding the project.

50. For more complete accounts see the New York Dramatic Times, January 20,
1885, and the New York Mirror, January 31, 1885.

THE PRIVATE THEATRE SCHOOLS 571

51. MacKaye, I, 291.

52. Ibid., 289.

53. Unidentified newspaper clipping for July 31, 1884, "Lyceum Theatre," Clip-
ping File, New York Public Library Theatre Collection.

54. Since much of the material in this section has not been previously collected,
the writer used a wide variety of sources. Much work still remains to be done in
obtaining and sorting material in this area of the study. Undoubtedly on-the-spot
investigations in such cities as New York, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, and San
Francisco would turn up much more detail. Among the sources used for this brief
view are: Garrett H. Leverton, The Production of Later Nineteenth Century Amer-
ican Drama (New York, 1936); Percy MacKaye, Epoch, 2 vols. (New York, 1927);
Dexter Smith, Cyclopedia of Boston and Vicinity (Boston, 1886); Steiger's Educa-
tional Directory of 1878 (New York, 1878); Werners Directory of Elocutionists,
Readers and Lecturers (New York, 1887); New York Dramatic Mirror; Chicago
Record, St. Louis Republic; Philadelphia Inquirer; The Theatre Magazine.

55. Lewis C. Strang, Famous Actresses of the Day ( Boston, 1899 ) .

56. Alfred Ayres was a pseudonym for Thomas Embley Osmun.

57. Ayres, p. 149.

58. For Belasco's views on early theatre schools see David Belasco, "Dramatic
Schools and the Profession of Acting," Cosmopolitan, XXXV (1903), 359-368;
William Winter, The Life of David Belasco (New York, 1918), I, 348 ff.

59. Franklin H. Sargent, "The Preparation of the Stage Neophyte," New York
Dramatic Mirror, July 19, 1911.

60. The only school in this early period that has been well documented is the
American Academy.

61. "Adeline Stanhope Wheatcroft," New York Dramatic Mirror, June 19, 1897.

62. Werners Directory, p, 259,

63. "Success on the Stage," p. 586.

64. "Franklin H. Sargent," New York Dramatic Mirror, March 21, 1896.

65. Jefferson, p. 448.

66. "Another Lyceum Complaint," New York Mirror, January 24, 1885. See also:
"A Lyceum Revelation," New York Mirror, January 31, 1885.

67. "A School for Actors," The Nation, XXXIX (1884), 195.

68. "The School of Acting," The Theatre, II (1886), 48.

69. This material has been drawn from the Catalogue of the American Academy
of Dramatic Arts for 1899 which outlines the work in detail. For additional dis-
cussion of acting theory and technique see Dramatic Studies, a publication of the
Academy which first appeared in 1893. Much of the material taught at the Academy
is illustrated here with detailed exercises and explanations.

70. Dramatic Studies, I (November, 1893).

71. Bronson Howard, "Our Schools for the Stage," Century Magazine, LXI
(1900), 32.

72. "Nelson Wheatcroft," New York Dramatic Mirror.

73. Marianna McCann, "Two Schools of Acting," Harpers Weekly, XXXV
(1891), 999 ff.

74. New York Dramatic Mirror, October 15, 1892.

75. For reviews of several Academy plays see Norman Hapgood, The Stage m
America, 1897-1900 (New York, 1901), pp. 291-303.

76. Henry James Forman, "The Story of Rachel Crothers," Pictorial Review,
XXXII (1931), 56.

77. Catalogue of the American Academy of Dramatic Arts for 1899 contains
a list of those graduated from the Academy.

78. Franklin Fyles, The Theatre and Its People (New York, 1900), pp. 24-25,
31.

2,3 College and University Theatre
Instruction in the Early
Twentieth Century

CLIFFORD EUGENE HAMAR

Well before 1900 there were rumblings and stirrings which foretold
the coming of significant changes in college and university treatment of
dramatic art. The continuity of thought and practice which linked the
nineteenth with the twentieth century may be indicated by a few
instances.

As early as 1886, William O. Partridge, sculptor, novelist, and profes-
sor of fine arts at Columbia University, made an eloquent plea for
college departments of drama before a national meeting of social scien-
tists.1 College catalogs show clearly that a number of professors were
teaching theatrical techniques in college courses some time before
1900. 2 Possibly a considerable number of teachers gave such training
under vague or misleading catalog titles. Henry Frink, professor of
oratory at Hamilton College, complained in 1892 that the word "ora-
tory" was being "usurped and turned from its original usage" by schools
for the technical training of dramatic readers.3 As subsequent evidence
will show, theatre courses often entered the college curriculum through
the offerings of semi-independent schools of oratory and elocution
which later became full-fledged collegiate departments.

A single brief chapter does not allow scope for reviewing the general
changes in American cultural institutions and in American higher edu-
cation which occurred during the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, important as these factors are for understanding why and
how theatre training entered the college curriculum. It is essential to
note, however, that even before 1900 educators were beginning to
accept the idea that the theatre has a basically serious role in our cul-
ture, that the theatre is an instrument for the moral uplift of man.4 The
principle that the drama is a fine art which must be witnessed by an
audience in the theatre to be appreciated, today universally accepted,

572

COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY THEATRE INSTRUCTION 573

was already gaming ground. This fact in turn led to acceptance of two
corollary principles: that one must pursue understanding of the drama
in the theatre, in the workshop where part of the essential creative
process occurs; and that modern and contemporary drama and the
"living" theatre constitute appropriate subjects for academic attention.

That such ideas have become commonplace today may be due, in
large measure, to the efforts of a few key figures in the history of our
educational theatre; for example, George Pierce Baker, Frederick Koch,
Thomas Dickinson, E. C. Mabie, Thomas Wood Stevens, Kenneth Mac-
gowan, Gertrude Johnson, and Alexander Drummond. For their effec-
tive advocacy of the laboratory approach to the drama, these men and
women are justly honored by theatre teachers everywhere. It is impor-
tant to remember, however, that the prestige of the laboratory method
of instruction was growing in many departments of the college and uni-
versity during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Pos-
sibly the most conspicuous tendency in higher education was away from
bookish learning toward the technical and practical.

Because studies of the development of theatre training in the college
and university have usually focused upon the larger and better known
institutions, it is possible that we have overemphasized the impact of
particular individuals on the development of instruction in practical
techniques of the theatre. It is customary to date the beginning of
American college and university theatre instruction from Baker's intro-
duction of a playwriting course at Radcliffe in 1903. Was Baker entirely
original in this? I doubt that Baker himself would have claimed as
much. In 1899-1900, Charles H. Patterson at the University of West
Virginia required practice in the writing of plays and study of contem-
porary drama in a credit course.5 Professor Lucius A. Sherman, a grad-
uate of Yale, required playwriting in connection with his course in "The
Principles of Dramatization" at the University of Nebraska in 1900-
1901.6 Did college and university instruction in the staging of plays
begin with the establishment of the "47 Workshop" at Harvard in 1905-
1906? 7 This event was a landmark, but "English 47" at Harvard was
not the first university course to devote attention to the physical pro-
duction of plays. Thomas Dickinson gave instruction in the "staging"
of plays in a course at Baylor in 1901-1902, although his course was
short-lived, it is true.8

With his series of textbooks entitled "Chief Contemporary Drama-
tists," Dickinson may have done more than any other single teacher to
encourage the growth of college courses devoted to the study of living
playwrights. At Wisconsin between 1909 and 1916, he fought valiantly,
against various forms of "academic repression," for the new point of
view toward the study of drama. He failed to persuade his colleagues

574 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATBE

in the English department, however, and diverted his efforts to the
development of the Wisconsin Dramatic Society off the campus.9 Ger-
trude Johnson and James M. O'Neill participated also in the fight for
academic recognition of theatre instruction at Wisconsin, and Johnson
succeeded in winning faculty approval for a course in "Dramatic Pro-
duction" in 1916-1917. 10 By this time, however, at least seven other
colleges and universities offered play production courses,11 The Har-
vard faculty did not recognize Baker's "47 Workshop" as a legitimate,
academic activity, either before 1921 or later. Mabie at Iowa and
Drummond at Cornell were just coming into national prominence
around 1919-1920; their wide influence upon educational theatre was
felt between World Wars I and II. As the director of a professional
theatre school in a technical institution, Thomas Wood Stevens stood
outside the current of curricular change in the liberal arts college and
university. Koch was chiefly known before 1921 for his advocacy of
instruction in the writing of folk-plays. College "dramatics" was effec-
tively making its way, and gradually a considerable number of drama
and theatre enthusiasts on college faculties succumbed to it.

A complete history of the American educational theatre of course will
carefully weigh the contributions of such giants as Baker, Dickinson,
Koch, Mabie, and Drumrnond. Indeed the work of some of our great
teachers of theatre already has been described in print. My primary
task here is to present the general picture of collegiate theatre instruc-
tion. Specifically, I shall attempt answers to the following questions:
(1) To what extent were discrete courses in various types of theatre
instruction offered at the turn of the century? (2) What types of dis-
crete courses invaded the curriculum between 1900 and 1920-1921? (3)
Was the growth (or decline) of specific types of theatre instruction
gradual or abrupt? (4) Where did the most significant developments
occur, in terms of geographical areas and particular institutions? (5)
What were the principal trends in course aim, content, and method, in
theatre instruction as a whole and in particular types of courses? ( 6 )
Who were the individuals most active in the early twentieth-century
development of theatre instruction, not as propagandists but as teachers
of new types of courses? and (7) What institutions, or types of institu-
tions, trained a significantly large number of the pioneer teachers of
theatre in the college?

Such questions embrace instruction in the formal curriculum only. I
am obliged in this essay, for practical reasons, to ignore the important
subject of extracurricular dramatics and their relationship to formal
instruction. I have limited the investigation, as far as possible, to curri-
cula of college-level institutions which required a certificate of gradua-
tion from a secondary school for entrance and granted a bachelor of

COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY THEATRE INSTRUCTION 575

arts degree, or the equivalent, for four years of resident study. The
primary evidence, accordingly, is drawn from the courses open to all
undergraduates which were listed in the annual catalogs of degree-
granting institutions.

I have relied mainly on the primary sources for any historical study
of the college curriculum, i.e., upon the official catalogs, registers, year-
books and similar publications of the relevant institutions. The "theatre"
courses described in the catalogs of American colleges from 1899-1900
through 1920-1921 appear to fit, with a minimum of overlapping, into
the following rough classifications: (1) Dramatic interpretation (with
two sub-divisions, Shakespearian and general); (2) Play presentation
(with two sub-divisions, Shakespearian and general); (3) Acting; (4)
Directing and "Coaching"; (5) Play production; and (6) Theatre his-
tory. A more precise description of the nature of courses placed in these
categories will be presented as each of the types is discussed.

The evidence comes from more than 3,000 separate publications
issued by 180 institutions of various sizes, denominations, and geo-
graphical locations. The median number of catalogs examined for each
of these 180 colleges and universities was 13 and the average number
16.7. In each of the possible catalog-years from 1899-1900 through 1920-
1921, the median number of publications examined was 144 and the
average number 136.7. 12

Since standardization in American higher education had scarcely
begun at the turn of the century, statistics on any very large number of
institutions have limited validity, of course. I have attempted to select
representative institutions. Whether or not the colleges and universities
covered here were truly "representative," the reader may judge for him-
self from the list of them in the notes. Of the 180 institutions sur-
veyed, 128 were located east of the Mississippi river and only 52 west
of the Mississippi. This fact should be noted particularly in connection
with later remarks on the geographical trends of theatre instruction.13

Dramatic Interpretation

Shakespearian

Among the 180 colleges and universities surveyed, 26 listed in one or
more catalogs a course devoted primarily to the oral reading or decla-
mation of passages from Shakespeare. Eleven such courses were de-
scribed in catalogs of 1899-1900 and 1900-1901; namely, at Wooster,
Northwestern, Oberlin, Washburn, State U. of Iowa, U. of Washington,
Michigan, Smith, Allegheny, U. of Colorado, and Yale. Certain of these
institutions, Northwestern for example, unquestionably offered the

576 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

course well before 1900. Somewhat later in the first two decades of the
century, 15 colleges and universities seem to have introduced courses
of this type.14 A great majority of the 26 courses, 18 of them, remained
in the curricula of the colleges offering them through 1920-1921.

From this data it does not appear that instruction in the oral reading
of Shakespeare was ever widely popular. In proportion to the number
of colleges which offered such courses around the turn of the century,
the growth of the course during the first two decades of the century
was insignificant. The years immediately following the first World War
were a period of rapid expansion in the curriculum generally and for
certain other drama and theatre subjects, but these were not years of
growth for instruction in the reading and declamation of Shakespeare.

Five of the early courses of this type were offered in Ohio institutions,
a rather high proportion for one state. Otherwise, the geographical loca-
tion, size, and type of the institution appear to have had little bearing
on the incidence and growth of the course.

A number of the catalogs gave significant clues concerning aim, con-
tent, and method. The course introduced at Otterbein in 1906-1907,
perhaps typical of instruction in this subject during the first decade of
the century, required analytical study of Shakespearian plays and
"rendition of principal scenes." 15 Some teachers of the subject, even in
the first decade, stressed the point of view, generally accepted today,
that the drama must be understood as an art not fully realized except
in the theatre before an audience. The course in "Reading Shakespeare"
at DePauw, for example, devoted attention to "conditions of produc-
tion and presentation." According to the university bulletin for 1904,
the course was an "attempt to see the plays from the standpoint of an
Elizabethan audience."

In general, the qualitative information on such courses in annual
publications from 1899-1900 through 1920-1921 suggested that the advo-
cates of Shakespearian reading and declamation looked upon it as a
method for helping the student realize the literary and dramatic values
in Shakespeare's plays more fully than he normally did in the classroom
devoted to lectures, quizzes, and weekly themes. The evidence indi-
cated further that the tendency in procedure was away from individual
declamation of scenes toward group reading of scenes. In some in-
stances, a course devoted to presentation of Shakespearian plays upon
the stage evolved gradually out of the reading course.

Although instruction in oral interpretation was generally given in
semi-independent departments of oratory, elocution, or expression in
the first years of the century,16 Shakespearian interpretation was not
uncommon in English departments. The catalogs, furthermore, indi-
cated that a number of the early instructors of this course held

COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY THEATRE INSTRUCTION 577

advanced degrees; namely, from Amherst, Earlham, Wesleyan, and
Taylor. Two were graduates of the Columbia College of Expression
and one of tlie Philadelphia National School of Oratory.

General

Courses in the oral interpretation of miscellaneous dramatic litera-
ture, including the classics but not predominantly Shakespearian drama,
were also evident in the colleges. Thomas Coulton discovered from an
examination of 1890 catalogs and earlier publications that only six of
139 colleges prior to 1900 "mentioned dramatic interpretation, and then
as but a part of courses given over principally to either elocution, decla-
mation, or voice culture." He noted also a very rapid increase in this
subject from 1900 to 1910 and a still greater increase between 1910 and
1935.17

This investigation was in agreement with Coulton's in noting a sub-
stantial number of new courses in dramatic interpretation, a total of
thirty-seven, in catalogs from the turn of the century through 1909-1910.
In publications from 1910-1911 through 1920-1921, however, we found
new courses in dramatic interpretation in only sixteen institutions. In
other words, the evidence confirmed the growth of the subject but
pointed to a decline in the rate of growth. The discrepancy between
these findings and Coulton's was due, apparently, to the fact that
Coulton placed many courses in this category which I have classified
under the headings of "acting," "play presentation," and "play pro-
duction."

General courses in dramatic interpretation were listed in catalogs of
1899-1900 through 1901-1902 at Kansas, Wisconsin, St. Louis, Albion,
Whitman, Mount Holyoke, Nebraska, State U. of Iowa, Southern Cali-
fornia, Adrian, Illinois Col., Syracuse, and George Washington. Some
of these courses were certainly introduced before 1900. From 1902-1903
through 1920-1921, as far as this study could determine, forty other
colleges and universities introduced work in dramatic interpretation.18
Of the total of fifty-three courses of this type identified, approximately
thirty-five seem to have remained in the curricula of the respective insti-
tutions through 1920-1921. It is noteworthy that no new courses of this
type were introduced from 1916-1917 through 1919-1920.

Although the subject appears to have been introduced into a wide
variety of types of institutions, the small coeducational colleges of the
West and South were especially well represented. Eighteen of the
thirty-seven colleges which offered this course prior to 1910-1911 were
in the West, a rather high percentage in view of the preponderance of
eastern institutions among those surveyed. Another ten of these thirty-

578 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

seven colleges were in the South and in the mid-western states, Wiscon-
sin, Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio.

In spite of general opposition to theatre training from the academic
faculty, a representative state university, Wisconsin, seems to have
given a course in dramatic interpretation throughout the first two
decades of the century. The 1906-1907 catalog of the university de-
scribed the course at that time as devoted to "conduct of Rhetoricals,
contests and plays" and to "Repertoire." The suggestion of training in
directing should be noted. In 1914-1915, under Gertrude Johnson, the
course at Wisconsin became "Dramatic Personation," and was described
as follows: "Designed for those who show marked dramatic ability,
and who wish to specialize in dramatic platform work. Advanced study
of pantomime with gesture. Character impersonation. Stage direction
and business." Miss Johnson was struggling at this time to develop
speech and theatre courses whose content would compare favorably
with other academic courses, and she stressed principles fundamental
to various speech activities while at the same time providing activities
which might appeal to students chiefly interested in play-acting.19

At St. Louis University at the turn of the century drill in "Elocution"
was required in all classes of the college. To judge from the catalog,
the drill consisted largely of declamatory rendition of dramatic selec-
tions by individual students. The work of each class was broken down
into two units, one in "Vocal Culture," and one in "Gesture Drill." In
1903-1904, the course was revised somewhat to put greater stress on
the drama. According to the annual catalog, the work after this date
consisted of "interpretation and rendition of various species of dra-
matic selections; Tragedy, Comedy, etc. Dialogues and Scenes." As in
other Jesuit universities at this time, the work terminated in the public
presentation of a play at commencement.

Lectures on ''analysis, mind, concentration, imagination, memory,
scene-building and interpretation" constituted an important phase of
the course at Florida State College for Women, 1902-1903. Under the
title "Vocal Expression and the dramatic instinct," the course in 1908-
1909 and later was devoted in part to "dramatic thinking; voice modula-
tions, pantomimic expression." The aim, according to the catalog, was
"exclusively" to "secure a solid foundation for conversational delivery";
that is, the course concentrated upon interpretation of drama for non-
dramatic purposes. The influence of Curry may be detected, perhaps,
in the foregoing references to "dramatic instinct" and "dramatic think-
ing."

Harvard's course in "Dramatic Interpretation * 1904-1905, included
"public presentation of characters in classic drama." In the course at
Alfred University, 1903-1904, and perhaps earlier, consideration was

COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY THEATRE INSTRUCTION 579

given to "modern drama" as well as to Shakespeare. An untitled course
at New Mexico, in 1904-1905 and "Dramatic Interpretation" at Temple,
1905-1906, also made a special point of the inclusion of "modern
drama." In the course at Temple, part of the program of the "junior
year" leading to a teaching certificate in the School of Oratory, the stu-
dents gave "One-act Plays"; that is, the procedures included some prac-
tice in "play presentation."

Professors Arthur Priest and Maynard Daggy at the University of
Washington offered two courses in "Dramatic Reading" beginning in
1904-1905. The university catalog announced the instruction as follows:
"The study of the classic drama from the point of view of vocal expres-
sion. Representative plays . . . are read, and selected scenes are acted by
members of the class. . . . Topics and critiques on various phases of
dramatic art." Priest and Daggy, both DePauw graduates, were enthu-
siastic promoters of acted drama at Washington, especially in the extra-
curriculum.20

At Stanford University, Lee Emerson Bassett's course in "Vocal
Interpretation of Dramatic Literature," introduced in 1906-1907, re-
quired individual and group reading of scenes from Shakespeare and
from modern plays. As taught by Elizabeth Buckingham after 1918-
1919, the course involved "the study of short plays, of literary and
dramatic merit, for presentation before the class." Parts were assigned.

Yankton College, where the Department of Elocution was semi-
autonomous until about 1914-1915, offered a sub-course in "Modern
Drama" after 1909 under the general heading "The Principles of Dra-
matic Art and Dramatic Interpretation." The college bulletin stressed
"perfect naturalness" as the keynote of all instruction. In the catalog of
the State College of Washington for 1909, a two-hour-per-week course
in "Dramatic Art" was described as follows:

Preliminary to the study and presentation of plays a series of lesson in Life
Study and Personation ... is given, followed by character studies from
Dickens with physical representation of the same. Dramatic scenes are then
given, together with a study of stage etiquette, deportment and business.
Later more advanced work in modern drama and scenes from Shakespeare
are presented.

This item remained in the catalog substantially unchanged through
1918-1919. The early theatre instruction at the State College of Wash-
ington appears to have been modeled after that in the Columbia Col-
lege of Expression, where all of the instructors were trained.

Accordingly, in the early twentieth-century college course in dramatic
interpretation, we observe a definite movement away from individual
declamation toward group performance as a method for learning dra-
matic values and dramatic techniques. Increasing use was made of

580 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

"modern drama" for study materials, although the classics were by no
means neglected.

The college catalogs contained information on the training of seven-
teen of the fifty-three teachers who introduced courses of this type into
college curricula. Of these, three were alumni of Columbia University.
The majority (fourteen) were graduates of schools of oratory, such
institutions as the Columbia College of Expression, the National School
of Elocution and Oratory, the Boston School of Expression (or Curry
School), the Northwestern School of Oratory (or Cumnock School),
and Emerson College. Here and throughout the investigation the evi-
dence indicated that the better-known eastern and middle-western
schools of oratory, through their graduates in college departments, had
much to do with the early growth of theatre instruction in the college
curriculum and even more to do with the shaping of course content
and method. For instance, the textbooks of S. S. Curry, founder of the
Boston School of Expression, were fairly common and his influence was
apparent in a number of catalog descriptions of courses.

Play Presentation

Shakespearian

Many courses seemed to be concerned primarily with rehearsal and
performance of plays, although not with problems of technical produc-
tion (scenery, lighting, costuming, and so forth). There are indications
that college credit was occasionally given for Shakespearian presenta-
tion prior to 1900. Latimer Obee, in a study of dramatics at Adrian
College, found that the first play publicly presented there was "given
in Downs Hall, June 8, 1897, by the Shakespeare Reading Class." 21 In
the catalogs of the 180 institutions covered by this investigation, thir-
teen new courses of this type were listed.

West Virginia, Colorado, Notre Dame, and St. Ignatius (now the
University of San Francisco) apparently offered instruction in the pres-
entation of Shakespearian plays in the years 1899-1900 and 1900-1901
or earlier. It may be significant that two of these four institutions were
Jesuit colleges. Nine institutions inaugurated courses of this type in the
years from 1904-1905 through 1920-1921.22 Only five of the total of
thirteen colleges and universities continued to list the course in catalogs
through 1920-1921. It appears from this evidence that instruction in the
presentation of Shakespearian plays obtained no very firm foothold in
the college curriculum generally from 1900 to 1920. Interest in such
courses was actually declining sharply during the second decade of the
century.

COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY THEATRE INSTRUCTION 581

A check on geographical distribution indicated that eight of the
thirteen courses were introduced in western or mid-western schools and
only one in the East, at West Virginia.

The course of this type first listed in the catalog of Southern Cali-
fornia was entitled the "Shakespeare Club" and later the "Dramatic
Club." Only students in the semi-independent College of Oratory re-
ceived academic credit for the instruction. Otherwise the course was
open, according to the catalog of 1906-1907, to "all regular students of
the university." The club devoted itself to "Interpretation and presen-
tation of the drama" and to "a study of dramatic law." "Shakespearian
Reading" at the University of Notre Dame, 1900-1901 or before, in-
volved the reading of two Shakespeare plays "with stage action." The
catalog stated, "The students present the play by scenes before the
class." A public performance may have been given. At St. Ignatius in
the same year the work of the "Elocution" class led to public presenta-
tion of Julius Caesar, in a local theatre, as part of the annual exercises
of the college.

John Quincy Adams's course at the University of Illinois, 1904-1905
and perhaps earlier, involved "Critical study and presentation of two
Shakespearian plays." As taught by Thatcher Guild, according to the
university register of 1906-1907, the course led to "public presentation
of a Shakespearian play or special scenes." At Miami, in 1910-1911,
Arthur L. Gates devoted his course entitled "Studies in Shakespearian
Drama" to "discussion of the means of realizing, both in oral expression
and in stage presentation, the dramatic values of the scenes studied."

The Washburn College catalog, 1911-1912, described a new course in
"Dramatic Reading" as follows: "Lectures on stage business and the
laws of acting. One tragedy and one comedy [both Shakespearian] are
studied, the principal scenes committed and worked out on the stage.
The aim is to cultivate an intimacy with Shakespeare, and to develop
responsiveness of mind, body and voice through dramatic representa-
tion." It may be observed that instruction in the technique of acting
was frankly a part of this course.

The bulletin of Yankton College for 1917 made the following an-
nouncement concerning a course in the Department of Expression:

English 16. The Annual Shakespeare Play. In connection with the regular
work in Shakespeare, and with training in the department of expression,
there is carried on each year a special study of an Elizabethan play, with a
view to presenting the same in public in a manner approximating the condi-
tions of the Elizabethan stage.

That Shakespearian presentation formed a part, at least, of some
English courses devoted to Shakespeare in the early twentieth century

582 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

is indicated in Walker's account of Frederick Padelford's work at the
University of Washington. According to Walker, "Dr. Padelford's
sophomore English class, in 1908, began work on two Shakespearian
plays, with the purpose of performing them in the spring." A similar
experiment the preceding year had been "exceedingly successful." 23

In general, it appears that critical and literary study of the plays
preceded rehearsal in a majority of the courses devoted to presentation
of Shakespeare. Public performance served, in part, as motivation for
the bookish study. Some teachers of the course, however, advocated
rehearsal and performance as a superior way of coming to understand
the dramatic values in the plays.

The data on the background of early teachers of this course was
rather meager. Gates at Miami and G. H. Durand at Lawrence held
A.M. degrees, the former from Columbia University and the latter from
Harvard. Patterson at West Virginia was graduate of Tufts and a former
student at the Paris Conservatoire.

General

Perhaps the nearest synonym to "general play presentation" in the
modern college catalog would be "rehearsal and performance." Discrete
new courses devoted chiefly to this activity were noted in the catalogs
of twenty-seven institutions. West Virginia, Oregon, and Tufts listed
such courses in the catalogs of 1899-1900 and 1900-1901; the remain-
ing twenty-four schools inaugurated credit courses in play presentation
later in the first two decades of the century.24 Until 1917-1918, instruc-
tion in this subject appears to have spread at a fairly constant rate.
Fourteen new courses were observed in catalogs of the first decade and
thirteen in catalogs for the years 1910-1911 through 1916-1917. After
the latter year, no new courses were observed. Approximately two-
thirds of the general play presentation courses located, sixteen out of
twenty-seven, appeared to remain in the curricula through 1920-1921.

In the incidence and growth of this course, the type and location of
the college seem to have had definite significance. Play presentation for
credit was evidently commonplace in Jesuit colleges around the turn
of the century. There was scarcely any such thing as an extracurriculum
or an elective system in the Jesuit college, however; all courses were
prescribed and all activities closely supervised. Of the fourteen courses
in general play presentation offered in the first decade of the century,
eleven were in institutions west of the Mississippi. The spread of the
course in general was from West to East

The catalogs contained much more data on aims, content, and method
than can be presented in this essay. Patterson's course at West Virginia,

COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY THEATRE INSTRUCTION 583

listed in the 1899-1900 catalog, was entitled "Dramatic Presentation."
The catalog stated: "Six plays will be cast and rehearsed. Possible pro-
duction of a play." For his course in "Interpretation of the Drama" at
Oregon, in 1900-1901, Irving M. Glen announced that at least one play
would be "publicly presented." Archibald Reddie, at Oregon beginning
1913-1914, continued the course in "the practical study of the drama."
His students presented three plays during the year under the auspices
of the University of Oregon Drama League. Under Reddie, the course
at Oregon included attention to elements of technical production, "cos-
tume, period decoration, architecture, manners and customs, musical
themes, stage carpentry, lighting and color effects." In other words,
"play presentation" became "play production" at Oregon in 1913-1914.

In three of the Jesuit schools, St. Ignatius, Santa Clara, and St. Louis,
courses of this type were very similar. The year's work in elocution was
directed toward preparation of a classic play for public performance.
Santa Clara appears to have had one of the best equipped college the-
atres in the country near the turn of the century.25

The course in play presentation introduced at Drake in 1903-1904 ( in
the School of Oratory) sought to develop "directness of address" and to
induce "sympathetic identification with a variety of characters." Drake's
annual announcement of courses for 1905-1906 indicated that the Del-
sarte system was taught in the theatre courses and that all such courses
included intensive physical training. Edwin and Florence Evans, who
taught the courses in play presentation at Drake after 1914-1915, seem
to have stressed the theories and methods of Curry, with special empha-
sis upon cultivation of the "dramatic instinct."

Fred Wesley Orr at Pacific University in Oregon, in 1906-1907, intro-
duced a course entitled "Drama" which involved careful planning of
"business," rehearsal of scenes and "presentation of scenes before the
class." In the second semester, the course required the writing of a
"short original play." Orr's successor in 1911-1912, William G. Harring-
ton, an "Honor Graduate" of the Emerson College of Oratory, intro-
duced instruction in "acting" in the course entitled "Dramatic Art."
Also he taught the following: "Platform deportment, stage business.
Preparation and presentation of short plays, . . . costuming, grouping,
tableaux; make-up; lighting and color scheme; stage management,
rehearsal and performance." Under Harrington, obviously, the course
became "play production," perhaps the first such course in an American
college.

"Life Study and Personation," introduced at South Dakota in 1909-
1910, required "the Presentation of short plays and scenes from the
classics and modern drama." The course also involved "training in stage
deportment and stage management." Re-titled "The Department Play"

584 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

in 1910-1911 and simply the "Mask and Wig Play" in 1913-1914, this
course still gave two hours of credit for each of two semesters' work.
The merger of the college dramatic club with the formal curriculum at
South Dakota was indicative of a growing tendency, particularly in
western colleges and stage universities, in the second decade of the
century.

To summarize, a number of American colleges, especially in the West,
offered credit-courses in "play production" prior to 1920-1921. In gen-
eral, the instruction was designed primarily to train public readers and
teachers of expression and dramatics. Very early in the second decade
of the century, as we have noted in the instruction at Pacific University,
courses in "play production" began to invade the curriculum with the
addition of training in technical production to activity in rehearsal and
performance. Some catalog descriptions of courses indicated a tendency
away from the relatively mechanical and analytical methods of Del-
sarte toward the more subjective and intangible methods of Curry.
There was clearly a tendency in the second decade of the century to
offer instruction in "play presentation" in regular departments of the
college for credit toward the B.A. degree rather than in semi-independ-
ent schools of oratory for the teaching certificate only, the frequent
situation prior to 1910. The departments of oratory were either disap-
pearing or gaining legitimate status in the college. The majority of the
teachers who first taught play presentation were graduates or former
postgraduate students of special schools of oratory, expression, or
elocution.

Acting

An "acting" course is difficult to define and even more difficult to
separate from other types of theatre courses. Instruction in rehearsal
and performance, or in play presentation, might include training in
acting. In this study only courses are so classified which aimed explicitly
at giving instruction in "acting" or which seemed, from the course
descriptions, to be devoted primarily to particular techniques of the
actor, for instance, movement on the stage, gesture and pantomime, and
use of the voice in the theatre.

At least twenty-nine colleges and universities offered some instruc-
tion in "acting" between 18994900 and 1920-1921. In the years 1899-
1900 and 1900-1901, Wittenberg, Idaho, Kansas, Smith, St. Ignatius,
and Wesleyan offered courses of this type. From 1901 through 1920-
1921, similar courses were given perhaps for the first time in an addi-
tional twenty-three institutions.26 At least twenty out of the total of
twenty-nine courses seem to have persisted in the curriculum once they
were offered.

COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY THEATRE INSTRUCTION 585

The introduction of instruction in "acting" by 29 out of 180 institu-
tions over a twenty-year period does not indicate universal acceptance
of the value of such training in the college curriculum, but it does show
that courses of this type were gaining a place in higher education
before 1920.

Even more strikingly than in the development of general play pre-
sentation, instruction in acting seems to have entered the curriculum
first in coeducational institutions of the West, and especially in state
universities and colleges. Of the fourteen schools offering such courses
before 1910-1911, ten were located west of the Mississippi and two in
the Mid-West, in Wisconsin and Ohio.

The courses I have regarded as "acting" bore a great variety of titles,
for example, "Dramatic Action," "Pantomimic Training," and "Tech-
nique of Dramatic Expression." Such titles as "Dramatic Art for Actors,"
"Acting as an Art" and "Play Acting" began to appear in college catalogs
comparatively late in the second decade of the century.

Reference to a few of the catalog descriptions will suggest the nature
of the courses. At Wittenberg, in 1899-1900, the study of "Theory,"
under a graduate of Curry's school in Boston, involved elaborate train-
ing in gesture, "dramatic work," and "Stage movement positions." "Pan-
tomimic Training" at the University of Idaho, in the same year, stressed
"elements of Delsarte's philosophy of bodily expression." Professor
Vickrey at the University of Kansas, in 1899-1900, also used the meth-
ods of Delsarte in such a course. Under the heading "Dramatic Action,"
his students gave "costume impersonations with accessories." Probably
all such courses were similar in content and procedure to "Dramatic and
Pantomimic Action" offered at the University of Washington between
1894 and 1896, the first theatre course at that institution, according to
Walker.27

One of three courses for seniors in the Elocution Department of
Smith College, 1900-1901, was entitled "Gesture and Pantomimic
Action." The work consisted of "Dramatic Expression" and "Scenes
from Plays." Training in the "presentation of dramatic materials"
appeared in the Smith curriculum in some form from the turn of the
century through 1920-1921. Wilford O. Clure, another graduate of the
Curry school, introduced a series of courses at Lawrence in 1903-1904
with the titles: "Assimilation and Dramatic Instinct," "Pantomimic Ex-
pression," "Pantomimic Training," "Dramatic Training," and "Imper-
sonation." The catalog of the college for 1908-1909 stated explicitly that
these courses were intended to train the student in the "art of the actor."

Instruction in "Acting Drama" at Carleton College, 1911-1912, af-
forded "practice in acting plays and scenes from plays." The course at
Macalester College, in 1913-1914 or earlier, emphasized "Physical

586 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

presentation of emotions, including facial expression, gestures and atti-
tudes." It was entitled "Action." At Pennsylvania State College, training
in "Dramatic Expression/' introduced in 1913-1914, aimed explicitly at
training in "the technique of the actor." The catalog stated: "Scenes
from standard dramas will be rehearsed and a finished production will
be staged/' Charles von Neumeyer at California introduced a course in
"Dramatic Technique" in 1916-1917, described in the university's an-
nual announcement of courses as "A study of the psychology of acting."
The course aimed "at cultivation and development of the dramatic
instinct through character portrayal."

In summary: (1) Reliance upon the Delsarte system for the teaching
of acting was common in the first decade but declined sharply in the
second decade; (2) The influence of Curry was apparent in content
and method throughout most of the twenty-year period; (3) The as-
sumption that training in acting meant cultivation of the "dramatic
instinct'' was widespread, a factor due not only to Curry's stress upon
"Imagination and Dramatic Instinct" but also, perhaps, to the "instinct
psychology" of the day, popularized by William James, Edward Thorn-
dike, and others; 2S (4) While a considerable number of teachers aimed
explicitly at training in "acting," the instruction was usually justified
upon the ground that incidental values were derived from it for all
students, for example, training in conversational speech; (5) In the
second decade, instruction in acting consisted less frequently of indi-
vidual drill and more frequently of group rehearsal, so that the border
line between "acting" courses and "play presentation" or "play produc-
tion" courses became increasingly vague.

A majority of the early teachers of acting courses, for whom back-
ground information was given in the catalogs, received some or all of
their training in schools of oratory, mainly in those institutions which
have already been mentioned in this essay. The graduate schools of the
University of Chicago, Columbia University, Michigan, and Ohio State
also trained some of the teachers. Three, for instance, had studied at
Chicago.

Directing and "Coaching"

The catalogs of twelve institutions, from 1899-1900 through 1920-
1921, listed courses designed to give training in the techniques of play
directing or to prepare future teachers for the coaching of plays. All
such courses were evidently brought into the curriculum in response to
a demand for teachers qualified to supervise dramatics in the public
schools.

The first discrete course of this type noted, in the catalogs available,
was offered at Hamline in 1912-1913. In the same year, however, Miss

COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY THEATRE INSTRUCTION 587

Latham in the Teachers' College of Columbia University offered a
course in "The Teaching of Oral English" which included "study of the
educational values" of dramatics, Subsequently eleven other colleges
and universities introduced instruction in directing, or coaching.29 Eight
of the twelve institutions in this group were located in the West or
Middle West, especially in the larger western cities. It may be inferred,
accordingly, that the high schools of certain western states, for example
Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and Oregon, were giving considerable atten-
tion to dramatics before 1920.

The course entitled a "Dramatic Seminar" at Hamline was devoted to
study of the theory of coaching plays, but afforded no practice in it as
far as the catalog descriptions revealed. Nebraska's course, introduced
in 1913-1914, was a mixture entitled "The Writing of Dramatic Criticism
and the Coaching of Plays." Possibly the two subjects were regarded as
complementary. Drake introduced a course in "The Coaching of Plays
and Pageants" in 1914-1915, but replaced it the following year with a
general course in play production. Apparently the contents of the two
courses were similar. The University of Utah, in 1918-1919, offered six
semesters of work in play production. The emphasis depended upon
whether the student registered for "Dramatic Art for Actors" or "Dra-
matic Art for Directors." The "Teachers' Course in Play Producing,"
first given at Oregon in 1914-1915, was practically identical in content
with the general course in "Play Production" offered the same year, and
the former was dropped from subsequent catalogs.

It was apparent from the catalog data on the whole that a number
of colleges and universities between 1912-1913 and the first World War
were experimenting with the kind of instruction that might provide
the best general background for the high school teacher of dramatics.
The choice gradually settled upon general "play production," the topic
of the next section of this essay.

No significant new information on the background of the teachers
who introduced directing or coaching courses was available in the
catalogs.

Play Production

The division between "play production" and "play presentation" is
of course, not clear cut. The courses to be discussed below are those
which seemed either to divide the instruction about equally between
matters of technical production and rehearsal and performance, or to
place emphasis upon the technical.

Reference was made earlier to an abortive effort by Thomas Dickin-
son to introduce a course in the "staging" of plays at Baylor, in 1901-
1902. As we have also noted, Pacific University in Oregon in 1911-1912

588 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

may have been the first institution to offer a course in play production
which persisted in the curriculum. Twenty-seven other American col-
leges and universities introduced training in this branch of theatre from
1911-1912 through 1920-1921. 30 In addition, courses which devoted
some attention to matters of technical production were offered in eight
colleges and universities,31 all for the first time evidently between
1916-1917 and 1920-1921.

Accordingly it is apparent that "play production" grew comparatively
rapidly in the college curriculum in the second decade of the century
and especially after about 1916-1917. Of the twenty-eight institutions
which clearly gave courses in play production, twelve were located
west of the Mississippi and another nine were in mid-western states;
Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, and so on. Only seven were in eastern
colleges.

Quotations and citations from a few of the catalogs will indicate the
general nature of the early twentieth-century training in play produc-
tion. The course at the University of Illinois, introduced by Charles H.
Woolbert in 1915-1916 and described fully in the 19164917 catalog,
involved "stage action; staging and acting of several one-act plays."
The course was given "especially in the summer session. The catalog of
Washington and Jefferson for 1915-1916 described a new course in
"Dramatic Art" as follows:

Three plays will be used each year as the basis of this course. Parts will be
assigned for impersonation. Instruction will be given for staging amateur
plays which should aid those who teach English in public schools and any
others who may wish to aid in community development.

The course in "Stagecraft and Production of Plays" first offered at
Mills in 1917-1918 included careful study of the history of stage pro-
duction and laboratory work on plays. Smith and Vassar also stressed
the "history of play production" in such courses. The work at Smith, as
of 1919-1920, aimed to "arouse appreciation of the art of the theatre and
to prepare students to put on school and community plays." Students
were given "practice in the organization of committees necessary in
stage production, in modelling stage settings and in directing re-
hearsals."

In the study of "The Acted Drama" at Ripon, 1917-1918, the student
was "introduced to the history of the drama and of the stage, and . . .
made acquainted with authors and plays of representative schools" as
background for the "actual work of staging a play." "Dramatic Produc-
tion," which entered the curriculum of the University of Kentucky in
1918-1919 with the addition to the faculty of E. C. Mabie, was described
in the university catalog as follows:

COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY THEATRE INSTRUCTION 589

Studies of community drama, dramatic personation and interpretation,
organization and technical work of the theatre and the presentation of plays.
A practical laboratory theatre will be operated in connection with this course.
The purpose is to promote appreciation of dramatic literature and to prepare
students for work as directors and supervisors of high school and community
dramatics.

Mabie introduced a similar course at the State University of Iowa in
1919-1920.

At Stanford University, in 1920-1921, Gordon Davis was the instruc-
tor in a new "Theatrical Workshop/' described in the university reg-
ister as follows:

A theatrical laboratory for advanced students in the production of one-act
plays for public presentation. Particular attention will be given to the con-
struction and designing of stage scenery, and to costuming, lighting, acting
and stage direction.

Howard and Brigham Young Universities also made a particular point
of offering training in the design and construction of scenery in 1920-
1921. Of course the Department of Drama in the Carnegie Institute of
Technology, excluded from this study because of its "professional" pur-
pose, had a discrete course in the designing of stage scenery as early as
1913-1914. In so far as could be ascertained from the catalogs available,
the elements of production, costuming, make-up, design, and so forth
were studied in the college before 1920 only in connection with general
courses in play production. The only exceptions noted were courses at
Carnegie and a separate course in make-up given in the School of Dra-
matic Art at Drake in 1914-1915.

The largest number of teachers who introduced play production
courses into the college curriculum, as well as other types of theatre
courses, seem to have been trained primarily in independent schools of
oratory, Harrington at Pacific and Reddie at Oregon, two of the earliest
teachers of this course in the American college, were both graduates of
the Emerson College of Oratory. Maud Babcock, an active promoter of
the drama at Utah from 1905-1906 through 1920-1921, was an alumna
of the National School of Elocution and Oratory in Philadelphia and of
the University of Chicago. Some of the early teachers of this course,
however, were trained in well-known university graduate schools. For
instance, Woolbert of Illinois studied at Michigan and Harvard.

Theatre History

From the turn of the century, teachers of dramatic literature were
paying increasing attention to the historical development of the physical
theatre as background for the understanding of drama. As early as

590 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

1902-1903, for instance, L. M. Harris in the English Department at the
College of Charleston included "consideration of the Globe Playhouse"
in his course on Shakespeare. It would be possible to cite numerous
instances of this kind.32 One sign of the increasing interest in theatre
history during the early twentieth century was the establishment of a
"Dramatic Museum" at Columbia University in 1911, through the
influence of Brander Matthews, As the preceding discussion has indi-
cated, a number of colleges before 1920 taught the history of the physi-
cal theatre in connection with training in play production.

The first discrete course in theatre history noted in this study was
given in the Greek Department at Illinois College in 1913-1914. It was
evidently limited to the evolution of the Greek theatre, In 1914-1915,
the Department of Elocution and Dramatic Art at Nebraska introduced
a course devoted to the history of the theatre from ancient to modern
times. Similar courses were first given at Pittsburgh, 1915-1916, and
Stanford, 1920-1921. The latter was "an historical survey of the origin
and development of the theatre, its social function and significance, and
a study of various kinds of theaters." A course introduced at Iowa in
1919-1920 seems to have been devoted to the development of the "con-
temporary stage." Again, it may be observed, the majority of these
courses appeared in western and mid-western institutions.

Summary

To what extent were discrete courses in various types of theatre
instruction offered at the turn of the century? The answer appears to
be that a quite insignificant number of colleges offered training for the
theatre around 1900. The subjects taught were chiefly dramatic inter-
pretation, play presentation, and "acting."

The new types of courses which appeared and the approximate years
of their introduction into the college curriculum seem to have been as
follows: play production, 1911-1912, with Dickinsons experiment at
Baylor excepted; directing and the training of teachers for play-coach-
ing, 1912-1913; and theatre history, 1913-1914.

Curriculum changes affecting theatre training were clearly quite
gradual. Each type of course evolved slowly with the discarding of
worn out content and procedures and the gradual adoption of new
materials and new methods. Innovations came with gradually changing
conditions and needs.33 In no single year did more than a handful of
institutions introduce new courses of a particular type. The decline
of certain types of courses, especially of dramatic interpretation, was
also gradual.

COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY THEATRE INSTRUCTION 591

The relative rate of growth of various types of courses may be seen
in the following tabulation:

TABLE 5

Type of Course

New Courses
1899-1910

New Courses
1911-1921

Total

Dramatic Interpretation :

Shakespearian

General

Play Presentation;

Shakespearian .

General .

Acting

Directing and "Coaching"

Play Production

Theatre History

TOTAL

101

193

Such statistics would have more significance, of course, if it were
possible to compare them with data on the rate of growth of other
subjects in the curricula of the same 180 institutions. It is well known
that the development of the elective system brought a great increase
in the number of college courses of all kinds. The evidence here prob-
ably confirms what is already a matter of common belief, that theatre
instruction did not constitute a major factor in higher education at any
time during the early twentieth century.

Our inquiry aimed, among other things, to discover where the most
significant developments in theatre instruction occurred in the early
twentieth century. The geographical evidence has indicated that a
larger number of new courses appeared earlier in institutions west of
the Mississippi and in the Middle West rather than in the East. State
institutions and colleges in the large western cities were especially
active in the development of theatre instruction from 1900 to 1920. Of
the various types of institutions discussed, Jesuit colleges seem to have
given most attention to "theatre" instruction at the turn of the century.

In so far as one may generalize from incomplete evidence, the aims
of early twentieth-century theatre instruction were consistently prac-
tical as well as cultural. In response to changing social and educational
demands, colleges sought to train public readers, lecturers, entertainers,
instructors in elocution and physical education, and finally, teachers
and supervisors of dramatics in the lower schools. At the same time, the
instruction aimed to develop understanding and appreciation of dra-
matic and moral values through methods conceived to be more dynamic

592 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

and effective than those prevailing in the traditional academic class-
room. The historically dominant aim of the American college, to mould
character according to the accepted ideals of the time and place, was
always present in the background.

Theatre instruction in the early twentieth century made constantly
greater use of modern and contemporary drama for study and drill
material, although the classics were not neglected. The favored pro-
cedure in college "theatre" classes during the first decade of the cen-
tury appears to have been individual drill in reading and in declama-
tion from memory; the trend after 1910 was toward group performance
in play presentation and play production courses. Attention to Del-
sartean theory and method virtually ceased by 1915, but Curry's phi-
losophy of "Imagination and Dramatic Instinct" exerted a strong in-
fluence upon content and methodology throughout the first two decades
of the century.

The relative importance and influence of men and institutions cannot
be measured accurately, of course, from quantitative data alone, and it
should be remembered that this study has excluded the growth of
dramatic literature in the curriculum. It is evident that the source
material covered does not provide absolutely firm ground for statistical
generalizations. On the other hand, so far as I can discover, no prior
study of the subject has gone so extensively or intensively into the
primary sources.

Notes

1. See his "Relation of the Drama to Education," Journal of Social Sciences,
No. 21 (September 18, 1886), pp. 188-206.

2. For example, Robt. M. Cumnock at Northwestern. See university catalog
for 1892-1894, p. 43. Phillip N. Walker describes a course at the University of
Washington m 1884-1885 which included "study of the plays of Shakespeare and
public practice in their rendition." See Walker's "A History of Dramatics at the
University of Washington . . .", unpublished M A. thesis, University of Washing-
ton, 1947, p. 6.

3. In "Rhetoric and Public Speaking in the American Colleges," Education,
XIII (November, 1892), 497-509.

4. For statements of this view, see article by Partridge and also the following:
Charles Klein, "Religion, Philosophy and the Drama," Arena, XXXVII (May,
1907), 492-497; B. O. Flower, "The Theatre as a Potential Factor for Higher
Civilization," ibid., 497-502.

5. See description of course m "The Drama" in university catalog for that
year, p. 117.

6. Listed with offerings of English Department in university calendar, 1900-
1901.

7. "English 47" first appeared in the Harvard catalog in 1905-1906.

8. Course listed in university catalog as "Dramatic Recitation." In a letter
dated November 16, 1951, to the author of this study, Dickinson states that "rumbles
of opposition and even of outrage" greeted his innovation. Baylor, he says, was still
"under the control of a rather rigorous religious temper."

9. In the term "academic repression," I am again quoting Dickinson's letter.

COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY THEATRE INSTRUCTION 593

10. O'Neill became head of the public speaking department in 1915. Miss
Johnson's course is listed in university catalog for 1916-1917. In a letter, Novem-
ber 18, 1951, to the author, she describes earlier efforts to incorporate work of the
university dramatic clubs into academically sound courses.

11. They were Pacific University, Oregon, Michigan, North Dakota, Illinois,
Washington and Jefferson, and Drake.

12. To list the specific catalogs examined is not practical in this volume. The
following summary of the number of catalogs checked for each of the 22 catalog-
years may assist the reader in evaluating the data, however.

Year Catalogs Year

1899-1900 . 56 1910-1911

1900-1901 121 1911-1912

1901-1902 . . 136 1912-1913 . .

1902-1903 138 1913-1914

1903-1904 138 1914-1915 . .

1904-1905 . 136 1915-1916

1905-1906 125 1916-1917 .

1906-1907 131 1917-1918 . .

1907-1908 . . . . 135 1918-1919

1908-1909 ... 144 1919-1920 ....

1909-1910 ... . . 148 1920-1921

Totals 1,408 Totals 1,599

Grand Total: 3,007

A catalog bearing the date of a single year rather than an academic year, e.g. 1900,
was counted as the catalog for the academic year beginning with that date, i.e.,
as the catalog for 1900-1901.

13. The findings of the study are necessarily given in summary only. The reader
who wishes to examine the evidence in greater detail is referred to my doctoral
dissertation for Stanford University ( June, 1951 ) entitled "The Rise of Drama and
Theatre in the American College Curriculum, 1900 to 1920." The dissertation dis-
cusses early twentieth-century trends in the teaching of playwriting, dramatic
theory, and other branches of dramatic literature, as well as "theatre" instruction.

14. 1902-1903, Mills, Boston University, DePauw; 1905-1906, Utah; 1906-1907,
Otterbein; 1907-1908, Illinois Wesleyan; 1908-1909, State College of Washington;
1909-1910, Demson; 1911-1912, Hiram; 1912-1913, Louisiana State; 1914-1915,
Brigham Young, Monmouth; 1915-1916, Pennsylvania State College; 1917-1918,
Berea, Simpson.

15. This and other quoted passages may be found in the catalog, yearbook, or
similar publication of the indicated date. Since publications of this kind are fugitive
material and largely inaccessible to the average reader, the page numbers are not
given.

16. See Hamar, "Rise of Drama and Theatre," Ch. VI.

17. "Trends in Speech Education in American Colleges, 1835-1935," unpub-
lished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1935, p. 94.

18. 1902-1903, Illinois, Willamette, Florida State College for Women; 1903-
1904, Drake, Alfred, Tufts; 1904-1905, Harvard, Cumberland, Washington, New
Mexico, Milwaukee-Downer; 1905-1906, Temple, Idaho, Denison, Stanford,
Kenyon; 1907-1908, Alabama, Colorado, California; 1909-1910, Yankton, State
College of Washington, Bates, Macalester, Vassar, 1910-1911, Adelphi, Earlham,
Carleton, Smith; 1911-1912, Simpson, Otterbein, Hamline; 1912-1913, Trinity
(Washington, D. C.), Pennsylvania; 1913-1914, Baylor; 1914-1915, Pittsburgh;
1915-1916, Colgate, MaryviUe; 1916-1917, Mills; and 1920-1921, Brigham Young,
and University of the South.

19. Miss Johnson refers to these struggles in a personal letter. See note 10,
supra.

594 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

20. Walker, pp. 61 ff.

21. "A History of Dramatics at Adrian College," unpublished Senior thesis,
Adrian, 1934 (in possession of Harold Obee, Dept. of Speech, Ohio State Univer-
sity), p. 10.

22. 1904-1905, Illinois; 1905-1906, Rockford; 1906-1907, Southern California;
1909-1910, Chattanooga; 1910-1911, Miami (Ohio); 1912-1913, Louisiana State,
Washburn; 1917-1918, Yankton; and 1920-1921, Drake.

23. Walker, p. 62.

24. 1901-1902, St. Ignatius; 1903-1904, Santa Clara, St. Louis, Drake; 1906-
1907, Oklahoma, Pacific; 1908-1909, Illinois; 1909-1910, State College of Wash-
ington, Southern California, New Mexico, South Dakota, 1910-1911, Swarthmore,
Miami; 1911-1912, Georgetown; 1912-1913, Otterbein, Wisconsin; 1913-1914,
Lawrence, Pennsylvania State, Willamette; 1914-1915, Kansas, Vassar, 1915-1916,
Cumberland; and 1916-1917, Montana and Missouri.

25. See description of it in Santa Clara College Catalogue, 1906-1907, pp.
132-133.

26. 1901-1902, Yankton; 1902-1903, Macalester; 1903-1904, Lawrence; 1905-
1906, South Dakota; 1906-1907, Oklahoma; 1908-1909, New Mexico, Drake; 1909-
1910, Iowa; 1911-1912, Carleton; 1912-1913, Hiram, Pennsylvania State; 1916-
1917, Alfred, Whittier, Utah, Montana, California; 1917-1918, Vassar; 1918-1919,
Beloit, Alabama; 1919-1920, Washington; and 1920-1921, Brigham Young, Ken-
tucky, Indiana. Some attention was given to acting techniques in earlier courses at
Washington and Vassar, at Temple (1902-1903), and at Knox (1908-1909).

27. Walker, pp. 6-7.

28. See John S. Brubacher, A History of the Problems of Education ( New York,
1947), p. 201.

29. 1913-1914, Nebraska; 1914-1915, Drake, Oregon, 1915-1916, Louisiana
State, Washington and Jefferson; 1916-1917, Washburn, 1917-1918, City College
of New York, Southern California; 1918-1919, Utah, and 1919-1920, Indiana and
Maine.

30. 1913-1914, Oregon; 1914-1915, Michigan, North Dakota; 1915-1916, Illinois,
Washington and Jefferson, Drake; 1916-1917, State College of Washington, Wis-
consin; 1917-1918, Yankton, Mills, Ripon; 1918-1919, Utah, Kentucky, 1919-1920,
Indiana, Lawrence, Smith, Maine, Minnesota, Iowa; and 1920-1921, Northwestern,
Pennsylvania State, Brigham Young, Monmouth, Stanford, Miami, Vassar, and
Howard.

31. Utah, Grinnell, Alabama, North Carolina, Missouri, DePauw, Washington,
and Bucknell.

32. Again see Hamar, "Rise of Drama and Theatre," Ch. VI.

33. Miss Johnson stresses in her letter to the author, note 10, that particular
courses must be considered "in the complete backgrounds of the era in which they
were set."

Dramatics in the High Schools,
19004925

PAUL KOZELKA

In 1900, dramatics was entirely cocurricular in American high
schools, although music and art were fully accredited. The plays pro-
duced at the time were on the whole lacking in literary merit, and the
directors or coaches were volunteer teachers, enthusiastic but untrained.
"Amateur theatricals" were considered a pleasant and harmless activity
with little educational value for either the participants or the audience.
By 1925, however, dramatics was an important part of the program in
the secondary schools of America. We propose to look at those twenty-
five years and to direct attention to the values and objectives of dra-
matics, the kinds of dramatic activity, the acceptance in the curriculum
of courses in theatre arts, the resources available to the teacher in
charge of play production, and finally, typical stages and equipment
of the period.

Values and Objectives

In the early years of the twentieth century, the primary objective of
play production in American high schools was to raise money. Before
long, however, some teachers recognized the educational potentialities
inherent in dramatic activity. In 1912, Miss Adelia Cone, of the Oxford
(Ohio) High School staff, advanced the claim that dramatics in the
small town high school had great value, not only for the community by
raising standards of drama and diminishing the popularity of plays
like The Fatal Wedding and Queen of the White Slaves as performed
by professionals in the Town Hall, but for the student as well, by teach-
ing him co-operation and better voice habits, by enriching his life, and
by inspiring him to greater learning.1

In the same year, Mr. J. Milnor Dorey, teaching in the Trenton (New
Jersey) High School wrote that it was the duty of the schools not only

595

596 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

to train the mind but also to develop live, forceful, attractive personali-
ties. School dramatics, he said, could develop three desirable qualities:
resourcefulness, which is acquired by studying and memorizing a part
in a play; knowledge of human nature, which comes by studying con-
trasting roles such as the liar, thief, or hypocrite; and altruism, which
comes out of the team-work involved in play production. He therefore
asked that dramatics be given formal recognition in education. Mr.
Dorey, whose dramatics group had raised $3000 for the school fund in
the previous seven years, believed that the income from ticket sales was
an important by-product of school dramatics and could be spent on
athletics, school equipment or maintenance, special lectures, and
books.2

Other people besides educators recognized the possible values of
dramatic activity and helped to change prevailing attitudes toward
"amateur theatricals." Eleanor Robson (Mrs. August Belmont), who
co-operated in establishing the Educational Dramatic League in 1913
for the purpose of raising standards and helping play production in
schools, churches, and settlements, said: "To produce a play educa-
tionally means that the preparation, not the production, is the most
important thing— not imitation, but natural development." 3 Mrs. Bel-
mont believed also that the new eight-hour day would create more
leisure time during which working people could take part in dramatics
and could "assume heroic characteristics" by acting noble and heroic
characters.

Thatcher Guild of the University of Illinois, however, found that the
prevailing objectives of high-school dramatics in 1913 were frankly
"fun and funds." His information was based on the replies to a ques-
tionnaire sent to 125 high schools in the United States. Other aims
listed in the replies were "to vitalize English work, develop taste and
imagination, give speech training, learn self -discipline and utilize the
dramatic instinct." * Educational service to the community was men-
tioned occasionally. Guild found that there was slight relationship
between classroom study in English courses and play production, even
though 86 per cent of the 125 schools gave plays regularly and 20
schools had produced plays and pageants written by students.

After World War I, some people made such exaggerated claims for
dramatics as a miracle solution to behavior problems that in 1921 John
Dolman felt he had to defend play production as an art whose greatest
single value lay in teamwork, not in incidental therapy.5 In 1924,
Clarence Thorpe of the University of Oregon further clarified aims and
objectives when he stated that through dramatics teachers could more
easily motivate the study of literature and create interest in the manners
and customs of the past; dramatics provided drill in speech, in mental

DRAMATICS IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS, 1900-1925 597

and physical coordination, and in discipline; it had a socializing influ-
ence and developed better taste in theatre-going; and finally, it was
preparation for better living.6

Other teachers in the twenties, either individually or through organi-
zations, tried valiantly and often successfully to reconcile dramatics
with the currently popular aims of secondary education: to promote
good health and good citizenship, to provide training for a vocation
and a command of fundamental processes, and to develop ethical cul-
ture, constructive use of leisure time, and "worthy home membership." 7
In 1928, Dina Rees Evans analyzed the returns of 1100 schools to a
questionnaire she had distributed, and found that personal development
was the most frequently stated objective of play production.

Values and objectives attributed to dramatic activity during this
quarter-century were altered and clarified as educators gradually rec-
ognized the universality of the dramatic instinct and learned how to
channel its varied expressions into constructive, fruitful creation. Ac-
cepted as a harmless and sometimes a trivial pastime at the beginning
of the century, dramatics was recognized by 1925 as a worthwhile field
of endeavor with clearly-defined goals and values,

Types of Dramatic Activity

The most common form of dramatic activity in this period, as it is
today, was the production of long and short plays. Pageants and festi-
vals, however, were very popular between 1910 and 1920, and drama-
tization was widely used as a teaching device.

The titles of 436 plays given in high schools between 1900 and 1925
are included in a note.8 The great variety and range of the plays
reflects the varying abilities and standards of the teachers who were
in charge of play production. Plays written for the amateur market
predominate, although Broadway successes appear in the list. Before
World War I playwrights hesitated to release their latest plays because
amateurs were not so conscientious about royalties as they are now.
Charles Coburn, for example, brought suit against three amateur
groups for unlicensed performances of The Yellow Jacket.

Amateurs presented Esmeralda and Green Stockings more frequently
during this period than any other plays from the professional theatre.
Esmeralda, written by F. H. Burnett and William Gillette, opened at
the Madison Square Garden Theatre on October 29, 1881, where it
played 350 performances. The Samuel French catalog for 1910 says:
"This celebrated play has been produced with tremendous success by
amateurs in general all over the United States. It stands high in favor
with principals of high schools." Green Stockings, written by A. E. W.

598 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

Mason, was Margaret Anglin's starring vehicle in 1912. It was released
to amateurs in 1915.

Although a director had a fairly large selection of long plays from
which to choose, relatively few one-act plays were available before
1915, and these were mostly farces of the William Dean Howells type.
After 1915 Barrett Clark and a few other leaders translated and pub-
lished significant one-act plays by European authors for the educational
theatre.

The majority of the 436 plays appearing in the footnote are contem-
porary plays, but there is also a respectable scattering of classics. Some
schools, such as East High School, of Columbus, Ohio, presented classi-
cal plays exclusively. At this school in the years around 1903, Miss
O'Lemert gave complete versions of Ralph Roister Doister, Midsummer
Night's Dream, As Jou Like It, Comedy of Errors, Taming of the
Shrew, Loves Labours Lost, Twelfth Night, RoUn Hood, and Mac-
Kaye's Canterbury Pilgrims.9 Many schools celebrated the Shakespeare
Tercentenary in 1916 with a Shakespearean play. Others observed the
occasion with an original pageant based on episodes from Shakespeare's
life and including scenes from his plays. At the Kansas City High
School, for example, 250 students participated in an outdoor pageant
called King Poet, for which the students prepared text, music, and
costumes.10

Pageants and festivals supplemented the production of plays. The
exact distinction between pageant and festival is clearly made by Pro-
fessor Azubah Latham, who defined a pageant as first, last, and al-
ways a spectacle, generally produced by a professional, whereas a
"festival is not an exhibition, but it might well take the place of school
exhibitions; it must be a community product, not the work of one or
two geniuses; it is essentially a celebration of some feeling, day or
other thing that we wish to celebrate; and the impulse must be spon-
taneous and the operation must be democratic." 1X Miss Latham is
credited with being the first person to use central staging in America,12
when she produced a festival in 1914, The Masque of Joy, in the center
of a gymnasium. Members of the audience came in special costumes
and joined in the singing and dancing.

The historical pageant, a kind of civic celebration directed and pre-
pared for various communities by such outstanding men as Thomas
Wood Stevens, Percy MacKaye, George Pierce Baker, and Garnet
Holmes, was a very popular form of dramatic activity from 1910 to 1920.

Students participated in or observed pageants and festivals in teacher-
training institutions, and then created similar productions in their own
schools. These ranged from Arbor Day celebrations to historical epics
and Christmas pageants.

DRAMATICS IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS, 1900-1925 599

Informal dramatics, under the name of dramatization, educational
dramatics, or improvisation, flourished during this twenty-five year
period in elementary and high schools. This teaching device, directly
related to creative dramatics of the present day and possibly to modern
role-playing, claimed a respectable pedagogical heritage in 1908.

If you try having a child act a thing, especially in his own words, with his
own improvisations . . . will he not take the story into his nerves and muscles?
The dramatic method is the "play" method, the actively illustrative method,
for the inspiration to which we are indebted to Froebel and his compeers.13

Alice Minnie Herts, who founded her Educational Theatre for Chil-
dren and Young People in New York in 1903, objected to the usual
practice of giving the best role to the brightest child and letting the
same child play the same role over and over again. She felt strongly
that:

. . . dramatic instinct is too often confused with dramatic talent and ignorance
of the laws relating to education and life is almost universal. . . . The object
of all dramatized lessons is to create in the unexpressive child through the
cultivation of its imagination in relation to the assumed part, a something
which did not previously exist for the child.14

Emma Sheridan Fry, who supervised dramatic work at the Educa-
tional Alliance from 1904 to 1914, explained her philosophy and method,
Educational Dramatics (New York, 1913), to help those who worked
with adolescents. By understanding the three zones of a personality,
Mental., Emotional, Vital, "the Educator may present contacts (stimuli)
and regulate the resulting sequence of life processes towards Expres-
sion." Mrs. Fry claimed that a "professional coach may produce good
plays but the educational profit of dramatics is not the entertainment
value to an audience but the value of the preparation to the players."
At about the same time, another book appeared, The Dramatic Method
of Teaching (Boston, 1912), written for the teachers of America by
Harriet Finlay-Johnson. It described how the English author had taught
history, literature, geography, arithmetic, composition, and even nature-
study by means of dramatizations. Miss Maude Frank, a teacher in the
DeWitt Clinton High School, New York, explained the values of drama-
tization in teaching literature as an aid to self-expression, to develop-
ment of imagination, and to vocabulary building. She liked the method
because everyone in the class could participate, but especially because
it "made the literature belong to the boys." 15

One teacher stated that too much dramatization might overdevelop
the imagination and the emotions, and too much acting might lead to
affectation and bluffing,16 but many teachers firmly believed in a shib-

600 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

boleth of the day, "the fact acted out is the fact remembered/' and
enlivened their classes with simple dramatizations.

The production of a standard play for an audience was the most
prevalent and accepted form of dramatic activity, but dramatization
in the classroom gave many more students the opportunity to partici-
pate in the dramatic process. Festivals and pageants brought theatre
experience to more students than could appear in a play. It was a rare
student who finished his high-school training without having had some
direct experience in dramatics.

The Place of Dramatics in the High-School Program

In the early years of the twentieth century the production of plays
was an entirely extracurricular activity directed either by a volunteer
English teacher untrained in theatre work or by a professional coach
hired from outside the teaching staff. Furthermore, the study of any of
the theatre arts was not considered important enough for academic
recognition; school administrators did not realize the need for qualified
teachers to direct dramatics, nor did any institutions of higher learn-
ing provide opportunities for young teachers to acquire background
and experience in theatre arts.

Personal experience of teachers active during this period reveals sig-
nificant changes in attitude toward dramatics. Between 1900 and 1908,
Mabel Hay Barrows produced plays and pageants in private schools,
settlement houses, and universities from New England to California.
She adapted plays from Greek and Latin sources and also wrote orig-
inal masque-plays. Some of her productions were directed by corres-
pondence only, and some by another person who used Mrs. Barrows'
notes and instructions. Mrs. Barrows discovered:

Almost everywhere . . . faculty and students agreed on the great advantage
of the training to the actors. Where the parts were thrown open to competi-
tion there were often three or four competing for each part. I would fre-
quently have fifty or sixty students practicing the dancing, though all knew
that not more than fifteen or twenty could be chosen. It was usually surpris-
ing to the faculty to see how many of the students they had not specially
noticed were '"brought out." 17

Miss Mary A. Thomas, who taught in a high school in upstate New
York from 1909 to 1913, recalls that she was engaged to teach English
and history and "do all you can to help the children socially/'

The academic session closed at one-fifteen p.m. ... I began at once to
organize a dramatic group. It was all extra-curricular; no courses in drama.
The students took to it as soon as they saw it was fun and not just another
class. We taught technique as the occasions arose. I regret to have to admit

DRAMATICS IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS, 1900-1925 601

that the plays were, on the whole, inconsequential, except for She Stoops to
Conquer, Dear Brutus, The Old Lady Shows Her Medals, and a few scenes
from Shakespeare.

Not more than two long plays were given in a school year, but the students
had experience in all branches of production. I did all the directing—certainly
not professional, with a student assistant. In our school, there were no courses
in elocution, expression or dramatics. No academic credit was given.18

Miss Wenona L. Shattuck describes her experiences in Vermont
around 1910 in the following excerpt:

The school produced one play annually as part of the graduation exercises.
The plays were trivial: A Strenuous Life, Professor Pepp, Shore Acres among
them. The casts were chosen from members of the senior and junior classes.
The principal of the school and an English teacher, both entirely untrained,
acted as directors. The "productions" were given in the high school audi-
torium with costumes and properties borrowed from townspeople and with
"sets" borrowed from the local "opera house." Lighting came from the regular
auditorium facilities with a spot or two supplied by a local light company.
Proceeds helped finance graduation expenses. I taught English at St. Albans
High School where we did The Rivals and The Importance of Being Earnest,
I assisted as director with no other experience or training than that received
in high school and college drama clubs.19

One teacher, in an article on techniques of directing, advised that
when rehearsals came to that point or "deadspot" where everyone hates
the play and each other, the "coach must lose her temper and flay
right and left." 20 She also should use a "sad, discouraged and dis-
gusted air for dress rehearsals."

A healthier climate for work in dramatics is apparent soon after the
First World War. Clare Slick recalls:

... in 1919 I took my first teaching job, directly out of college. I was engaged
as a speech instructor in a western high school at a salary of $1000, which
was considered a goodly sum. Two full-time instructors were employed. All
Freshmen students were required to take speech. The course was really a
fundamental course, designed to promote greater reading efficiency. Beyond
this requirement, speech courses were optional, but full credit was given for
advanced courses. Interpretation and literary appreciation as well as dramatic
literature were included in the advanced work. Every high school lad aspired
to recite with fervor "Gunga Din" and the "Cremation of Sam McGee." Dur-
ing the school term, we were required or expected, barring fatalities, to pre-
sent six one-act plays for the assembly period, one operetta, and one Senior
play.21

Dina Rees Evans' experiences around 1924 are significant She ar-
rived at Bozeman (Montana) High School to find the little theatre
movement in full swing:

The effects of summer sessions at Wisconsin, Minnesota and Northwestern,
together with the influence of the little theatre and the inspiration of Theatre

602 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

Arts Monthly . . . made me revolt against the painted interiors and the ex-
terior provided us by the school board, to be held sacred through the years
against any violation of change. In our zeal, the students and I built and
painted sets with our own hands. It was revolutionary. In Bozeman, I taught
accredited classes in dramatics and . . . with my high school club called "The
Parrots"— the stage crew was known as "The Perch'*— I produced Seven Keys
to Baldpate, The Goose Hangs High, The Road to Yesterday and Jou and 1.
There was a pent-house production of Twelfth Night. We won the state con-
test at Missoula with The Valiant.22

All through this quarter-century there is evidence that adminis-
trators approved of dramatic activities in their school programs. Early
in the century Thomas Davidson said:

That dramatic work should form a branch of common school education, I
have not the slightest doubt. So long as the theatre forms one of the chief
amusements of the great body of our people, it is most essential that they
should be taught in school to appreciate a good drama and to reject a low-
toned inartistic one The reason that so many people seek low pleasures

and coarse sensual delights, is that our schools, by neglecting their aesthetic
education, have left them without means of finding amusement and delight
in a rational way.23

In 1915, Mr. W. F. Slocum, principal of the Carl Schurz High School,
said that drama provided "the very last finishing touch of the art-culture
of a school." On the other hand, one principal when replying to a ques-
tionnaire on how dramatics contributed toward citizenship, said:

Not at all. . . . Such work is trifling, non-productive, appeals to cheap ego-
tism of a few pupils. The time and energy of pupils should be directed to work
of lasting value. One play each term given by members of the Senior Class
gives quite adequate opportunity to any real talent and more than enough
for poor abilities. Elocuters are trying to create jobs for themselves by boost-
ing for Dramatic Training.

In 1925, Dr. William M. Davidson, superintendent of Pittsburgh
schools, said in the preface to a book of plays:

But what is of far greater significance to me than the recreational and, in
the narrow sense, educational advantages to be derived from the production
of plays in schools, is the humanitarian aspect of the whole matter. By this I
mean that I am convinced that drama is much more than a school "subject":
it is a manifestation of life and character. . . . Drama seems to me one of the
most important factors in modern education.24

In some communities an outstanding dramatic production helped to
change the attitude of administrators and general public alike toward
dramatics as a curricular subject. The Shakespeare Tercentenary in
1916 was observed in many schools by excellent productions on modi-
fied Elizabethan stages. As one teacher explained it, presenting Eliza-

DRAMATICS IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS, 1900-1925 603

bethan plays in the original style made dramatics academically accept-
able by creating a favorable attitude toward theatre in a community.
He believed also that the current widespread popularity of Shake-
speare was the result of emphasis which university professors were
placing on advanced study of Shakespeare "from an acting point of
view/* the increase in popular knowledge of the theatre, and, finally,
the great interest in various forms of dramatic activity both for instruc-
tion and recreation.23

Another factor, albeit a negative one, in the struggle to win academic
recognition for dramatics was the growing dissatisfaction with the
work of professional coaches. Professor H. J. Riverda, of Cornell Uni-
versity, claimed that a professional coach did not tie the play in with
classwork, he did not understand the routine of the school and he was
too dependent on the financial success of the play. "Even if there is
something lost in actual finish of a play, the evils of using an outside
coach are so great that the idea cannot be endorsed." 26

The situation is vividly described in Clare Slick's letter:

Our class work was so heavy (180 students per day), that another pro-
fessional director was called in to assist us on the extra-curricular activities.
This practice was employed in the middle west, I recall as a student. For our
class plays and declamatory contests a special coach came from Des Moines
to train us for these events. I think all small high schools followed this prac-
tice. I know of several coaches who were assured of fairly steady work all
during the school year. They traveled from town to town and did this "coach-
ing." Of course if a regular instructor could be induced to take on this extra
load, the expense of a professional was not deemed necessary unless they
were anxious to surpass a rival town. , . . Most of the plays were comedies,
with little literary merit I should say. One hundred dollars a week was the
top price paid for such work. Two weeks was generally the allotted time,
but smaller schools often engaged a professional for the last few rehearsals
only, expecting him to do the miraculous.

Gradually during this twenty-five year period administrators and
curriculum supervisors recognized the educational potentialities of
dramatics under the guidance of qualified, full-time teachers rather
than outside coaches. By 1925 only one out of 47 California schools had
a professional coach, and in 1929 only one out of 177 Kansas high
schools had a non-faculty dramatics director. At the same time, dra-
matics was gradually introduced as a full-time, curricular study rather
than as an annual or semiannual event isolated from classroom ac-
tivity.

The slow process of establishing accredited courses in theatre arts
began in 1915 and, of course, has not ended yet. In 1917 a notice in the
English Journal asked members of the association to urge their prin-
cipals to give credits in English for dramatics.27 By 1915 thirty-five

604 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATBE

schools in southern California were offering from one-half to four cred-
its for dramatic classes, and colleges and universities had begun to give
entrance credit for courses in dramatics which included certain stipu-
lated material. Nevertheless, some teachers objected strenuously to
giving credit for play production. Mr. Frank Tompkins of the Central
High School in Detroit believed that this kind of course should be in
the English department solely, that only good, historical plays should
be read and produced occasionally if they did not consume too much
time or distort the true academic aim of the course. He believed that
no credit in English should be given for production or the arts of the
theatre. He knew of one boy who "got English credit for two hours of
face make-up and history of costume to present to an Eastern univer-
sity. This is deplorable." 2S

Space does not permit a full description of how individual teachers
and principals all over the country began to develop courses in dra-
matics, at first in the English department and, after 1917, in separate
speech departments. We can, only point to some of the important mile-
stones. In 1915 a course in dramatics and a little theatre were estab-
lished in the high school at South Bend, Indiana. In 1916 a two-year
course was inaugurated at a Dayton, Ohio, school; it included history
of drama, stage phraseology, playwriting, voice development, and
simple impersonation.29 An elective course in play-reading, acting, and
playwriting was offered in 1917 in the University of Chicago High
School.30 In this same year the Senior class of seventeen students of the
Chisholm, Minnesota, school had as a year project the co-operative
writing, staging, and publishing of a regional or folk play.31 At the
1920 Convention of the National Association of Teachers of Speech, the
complete separation of dramatics from the English field was urged by
the committee on high-school courses. The Texas Speech Arts Asso-
ciation was organized in 1921. In the English Journal the same year,
Miss Mary Rodigan declared that dramatics should be a curricular
subject, because it had so many possibilities for personality develop-
ment; it presented a large body of facts; and it could be taught scientif-
ically. "We are applying a psychological law when we capitalize the
play instinct." Miss Rodigan described a two-year course in dramatics
covering historical, literary, artistic, and mechanical aspects of the
theatre which she was teaching at the Racine (Wisconsin) High School
even though she had no stage.32

Dramatics won academic recognition toward the end of this era for
several reasons. Qualified teachers rather than outside coaches showed
how participation in dramatic activities developed personalities and
prepared students as well as any traditional course of study, and some-
times better. Administrators realized that a student should be given

DRAMATICS IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS, 1900-1925 605

credit for an activity which could help him mature and into which he
poured large amounts of time and energy. The general public saw how
the production of plays growing out of continuing course work gave to
dramatic activities a new perspective and stability that had been lack-
ing in the early years of the century.

Resources

Where could the teacher responsible for producing a play turn for
help to solve the many problems of play production, rehearsing and
acting, and of scenery and lighting? Where could the director get new
ideas, inspiration, and encouragement?

Not only the plays but ideas for staging them often came from the
professional theatre. Around 1904, the Ben Greet players began their
regular tours of America and presented Everyman and Shakespearean
plays out-of-doors or on bare stages of schools and theatres. This prac-
tice of presenting Shakespeare on Elizabethan-type or semi-bare stages
begun in the nineteenth century in England by William Poel was
successfully carried out by Mr. Floyd Bartlett, principal of the Auburn
(New York) Academy High School during the lS90's and early 1900's,
Mr, Bartlett used a flexible, open stage to present the annual class play,
always chosen from Shakespeare.33

Magazines and books explained and illustrated the ideas of Gordon
Craig, Reinhardt, and other European leaders of the "new movement"
in stagecraft. Hiram K. ModerwelFs The Theatre of Today and Sheldon
Cheney's The New Movement in the Theatre appeared in 1914. College
and "Art" or "Little" theatres adapted many of the new ideas to their
productions. Walter H. Nichols, a teacher in the Pasadena (California)
High School, introduced some of these ideas to fellow English teachers
in an article on high-school dramatics. Mr. Nichols explained Gordon
Craig's emphasis on simplicity of scenery and his methods of synthe-
sizing all the elements in a production. Describing Craig's production
of Hamlet at the Moscow Art Theatre in 1914, Mr. Nichols says:
"Craig revealed hitherto undreamed-of possibilities in simple mono-
tone screens, differently arranged and lighted for different scenes and
moods of the play. Professor Reinhardt has accomplished wonders along
similar lines in his Berlin production." Mr. Nichols explains how the
Irish Players, who toured America in 1911, achieved effective, simple
scenic effects solely through lighting.34

The professional theatre provided plays for the high-school theatre
as well as ideas on how to simplify scenery artistically. However, find-
ing just the right play for a particular group of students, then as now,
was a difficult problem. Among the resources available to a teacher

606 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

were play lists, magazine articles, a few books, and certain university
departments. Mr, Thatcher Guild, in 1913, wrote that since 70 per cent
of college freshmen had taken part in amateur dramatics, the high-
school coach should choose a play not only because it was entertaining
but because it gave the actors something worth doing. Mr. Guild sug-
gested that teachers find plays with good themes by (1) buying plays
from publishing houses (they cost only fifteen or twenty-five cents
each at that time), (2) writing to the Agency for Unpublished Plays,
(3) following the bulletins of the Drama League, and (4) reading the
Dramatic Index, which had begun to appear in 1908. 35

After 1911 the teacher could turn to the lists of plays distributed by
six publishing houses and three women's organizations. The play pub-
lishers included Samuel French, Inc., Walter H. Baker Co., Dramatic
Publishing Co., Penn Co., Dick and Fitzgerald Co., and the Eldridge
company. The Samuel French catalog in 1910, for instance, lists the
names and sometimes the descriptions of 600 new plays, most of which
are one-acts; 1,820 standard plays; and 350 in the category of "minor
drama." In the Baker catalog of 1912 the royalty for Wedding Bells
is listed as only five dollars, but for Langdon Mitchell's The New York
Idea, a recent Broadway success, it is quoted as twenty-five dollars.
Pinero's The Profligate is described as being "not suited for amateur
performances or permitted to them" and his The Second Mrs. Tan-
queray is also prohibited because, according to the publisher, it "can-
not be played by amateurs." In the same catalog there are eleven
pages of comedies and minstrel sketches for female characters and four
pages for men; and there are lists of operettas, tableaux, statuary epi-
sodes, charades, mock trials, and pantomimes.

In 1908 Elizabeth McFadden and L. E. Davis published A Selected
List of Plays for Amateurs and Students of Dramatic Expression in
Schools and Colleges. Lists of plays and notices of current theatrical
activity were widely distributed by the American Drama Society
(founded in 1909), the MacDowell Club (1910), and the Drama
League (1911). When the first volume of the Quarterly Journal of
Public Speaking appeared in 1915, it contained a list of available
European and English one-act plays prepared by Alexander Drum-
mond. Other pioneer teachers who prepared lists of plays for various
publications were E. C. Mabie, Frederick Koch, Clarence Stratton,
Sarah Trainer Floyd, and Gladys Tibbetts. Information on available
plays began to appear regularly in the English Journal and in the bul-
letins of the American Library Association. Several universities, among
them Utah, North Dakota State, Cornell, and North Carolina, estab-
lished rental libraries and circulated thousands of plays. Over twenty
anthologies of plays were published between 1915, when the first

DRAMATICS IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS, 1900-1925 607

edition of Thomas Dickinson's Chief Contemporary Dramatists ap-
peared, and 1925, when Frank Shay published Twenty-Five Short Plays.
Books on the technique of directing plays were extremely rare before
1917. One book (1890) gave this kind of advice:

Have every actor recite Collin's "Ode on the Passions" before a mirror and
practice the expression of all the passions from anger to wonder with proper
gestures, tone of voice and facial expressions. Select the play for the strong-
est members of the group. Arrange act endings or tableaux to form appro-
priate living pictures with the leading people as centers of interest. For a
play of average length, plan at least six rehearsals but twelve would be good.
Buy paper scenery at Art stores for interior settings. Paste the following rules
inside your hat: Be letter perfect. Speak clearly and slowly. Don't interrupt.
Be appropriately dressed. Stand still. Face the audience. Underact rather
than overact. Choose easy plays or secure the services of a professional
coach. That is all.36

Another book (1916) treats carefully such problems as dramatic
values, emphasis, triangular grouping and other aspects of picturiza-
tion, tempo and rhythm, scenery, costuming, and lighting. The author
also insists that the student actor be given sides only, never a full
script. Then he will never be distracted and also 'Tie can form no
independent (and possibly mutinous) notions about how the play
should be conducted as a whole." 37

More useful and popular books on the arts of the theatre and on the
specific problems of play production in high schools began to appear
in 1916 and were used by teachers as references or as texts. The best
known in this group include Arthur Krows' Play Production in America
(1916), Barrett Clark's How to Produce Amateur Plays (1917), Louis
Calvert's Problems of the Actor (1918), Arthur Hopkins' How's Your
Second Act? (1918), Gertrude Johnson's Choosing a Play (1923), and
Helena Chalmer's The Art of Make-Up (1925).

By 1926 a teacher could select a textbook for a class in dramatics
from among Andrews and Weirick's Acting and Play Production, Alice
E. Craig's The Speech Arts, Crafton and Royer's The Process of Play
Production, Milton Smith's The Book of Play Production for Little
Theatres, Schools and Colleges, Claude Wise's Dramatics for School
and Community, Andre Smith's The Scenewright, and Roy Mitchell's
The School Theatre. In some courses one or two anthologies of plays
were used in addition to these technical books.

Theatre Arts magazine, beginning as a quarterly in 1916, became
indispensable to the teacher in charge of dramatics, and other pro-
fessional magazines began to carry stories and illustrations of activi-
ties connected with play production in schools. An entire issue of School
Arts Magazine (1924) was devoted to articles on costuming, lighting,
equipping a stage, rehearsals, and puppetry and the use of other de-

608 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

partments in the school38 In another magazine, Industrial Arts (1924),
Philip Burness, a shop teacher in Lindblom High School, Chicago,
showed how all the different shops in a technical school could work on
the scenery, lighting, and publicity for a play. He believed that if
dramatic work was directed by the proper teachers it could "encourage
more cultural thought and accomplish more technical training than
much of the ordinary classroom work/' 39

Guild, in 1913, in the article referred to above, said that the dra-
matics coach could teach acting best by imitation if she could assume
the various characters. He believed that a reasonable equipment for
the coach was dramatic instinct and the opportunity to observe good
acting. He advocated the study of recordings, motion pictures, and
the photographs of scenes from plays in the catalogs of the Byron
Company. These were ways of self-help. Soon institutions of higher
learning began to offer courses and practical experience in theatre
arts.

Teachers College of Columbia University in 1913 commenced courses
in the techniques of festivals, pageants, and dramatization. A check of
available catalogs shows that courses in dramatics for teachers were
offered during the summer sessions of 1914 at State College of Wash-
ington, in Pullman, and the University of North Dakota. The Univer-
sity of Texas offered a round table discussion for no credit, at which
"Problems of Expression in Public Schools'' were analyzed and solved.
In 1915 summer courses labeled "High School Dramatics" or "Practical
Instruction in Staging Plays" or "Interpretation of Dramatis Personae"
were given at Cornell University, the University of California at Los
Angeles, and at Berkeley, the University of Wisconsin, DePauw Uni-
versity, the University of Iowa, Iowa State College, and Pennsylvania
State College. Teachers enrolled in courses given by specialized schools
such as the American Academy of Dramatic Arts in New York, the
Columbia College of Expression in Chicago, and the Emerson College
of Oratory, the Leland Powers School of the Spoken Word, and the
School of Expression (Curry) in Boston. In 1921 Professor Frederick
Koch reported to the convention of the Drama League of America that
398 courses in dramatics representing 998 academic hours were being
given in 164 institutions of higher learning.40

Beginning in 1917 and continuing through 1928, all students at Hun-
ter College were required to take a course which included dramatics
and speech development. By 1929 all prospective teachers of high-
school English in the state-supported institutions of West Virginia were
required to take a course in play production.

A new type of resource for the teacher of dramatics became available
in the 1920's, when graduate schools encouraged students to under-

DRAMATICS IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS, 1900-1925 609

take research in the area of high-school dramatics. By 1930 at least
eight graduate students had investigated various aspects of the sub-
ject, bringing large amounts of organized material to teachers, adminis-
trators and the public. Ruth Damon wrote on "Some Tendencies in the
Field of Speech," 41 Mary Margaret Robb's study was entitled, "Aims
and Methods of Dramatic Work in Secondary Schools." 42 Elizabeth F.
Keppie, basing her study primarily on replies to her questionnaire
from forty-seven California schools, wrote on "Dramatics in the High
School." 43 Gilbert T. Gustafson, using the replies to his questionnaire
returned from 127 schools, wrote on "The Status of Extra-Curricular
Activities in Iowa High Schools for the School Year of 1925-26." 44
Dina Rees Evans' investigation was entitled, "A Preliminary Study of
Play Production in Secondary Schools." 45

Wilhelmina G. Hedde, in 1929, prepared "A Survey of High School
Dramatics in the School System of Cities of Population Over 30,000." 46
The report begins with a brief description of each of the milestones in
the progress of dramatics from 1899, when a course called Oral English
was established in the Oakland ( California) High School, to 1927 and
the Drama League Report of that year which, among other things,
gave basis for the statement that there were over three million students
eager to participate in dramatic activities in high schools. Miss Hedde
includes the course outlines used in the dramatics courses of eight
schools and describes fully the findings of her own questionnaire. Ber-
tha Luckan Wilson investigated "The Status of Dramatics In the Senior
High Schools of Kansas-1929-1930," 47 and in the same year, 1929, E.
Turner Stump described "A State Program of Educational Dramatic
Activities for West Virginia." 4S

A teacher in charge of play production at the beginning of the
twentieth century often had an innate sense of good theatre, enthu-
siasm, and a willingness to learn by experience, but there was no large
body of plays from which to make a selection and it was difficult if not
impossible to get any help from teachers or books. As interest in super-
vised or educational dramatics grew, authors and publishers increased
the number and quality of plays, qualified workers wrote valuable
books on acting and production techniques, and colleges and uni-
versities introduced at first single courses and later extensive programs
in all theatre arts to meet the needs of young teachers.

Production Problems

The stages for high-school plays were, as a rule, hopelessly inade-
quate in both size and equipment. In the early years of the century
there were a few good stages and auditoriums in certain high schools,

610 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

but more often the stage was a lecture platform or a temporary con-
struction of platform and curtains. Mr. Nichols, of Pasadena, complains
in 1914 of the way school boards and architects continued to provide
poor stages* with no wing space but large aprons, and very deep or-
chestra pits.49 He suggests a room for the cast to study their homework
during rehearsals with only one door which leads directly on-stage. The
chaperon (a member of the faculty) could thus carry out her work
more easily. Mr. Nichols asks for a good switchboard because beauti-
fully lighted stage pictures are "all powerful in impressing art stand-
ards on students."

Some schools were built without stages so that play-giving (the work
of the devil) would be impossible. For instance, the high school in
Tacoma, Washington, was built in 1907 with an auditorium but no
stage. At one end was a platform, but to prevent its use as a stage, rows
of steps were erected for the chorus. The 1800 students demanded a
play, however, and in 1908 one was given; the next year there were
two, and in 1910 a stage was built.50 Some schools rented the Town
Hall, or occasionally the nearest regular public theatre. The high
school at East Columbus, Ohio, gave some of its plays outdoors and
had an indoor stage 14' x 25' surrounded with neutral muslin.

Scenery was rented, improvised, and occasionally built by the stu-
dents. When Miss Charlotte Herr gave She Stoops to Conquer in 1908,
at the high school of Idaho Springs, Colorado, the problem of scenery
was left to near the end of the rehearsal period. The play was pre-
sented in the town theatre and "under the direction of a young college
man who had some experience in the production of plays at Harvard,
the senior boys set to work in the manual training building, and in a
few days they had constructed the frames/' 51

At Tacoma (Washington) High School, sixteen performances of
eight plays were given in 1915. Only two settings were available for all
productions; one small set was painted by the art students and one
elaborate set was done by a professional scenic artist who charged five
cents per square foot Both sets cost sixty dollars. Proceeds from the
twenty-five cent admission charge went to the stadium fund or for
paintings to hang in school corridors.

High-School Dramatics Today

In some respects the picture of high-school dramatics has not changed
since 1925; in other respects it has greatly improved.

Today the problems of producing a play are better understood by
administrators and architects and unusually fine facilities have been

DRAMATICS IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS, 1900-1925 611

provided in some schools. To achieve flexible lighting, the trend now is
to install spotlights and dimmers in place of the general lighting units
and switches of long ago. Some schools have small studio theatres for
dramatic work in addition to a larger auditorium. The old practice of
using the same set of scenery for every play and even circulating the
same flats year after year among several schools in one area is still
followed in isolated regions, but the usual procedure today is to have
students design, build, and paint scenery for every new production. In
this way students can participate more completely in the entire process
of producing a play.

Similarly, the resources available to a good teacher of dramatics
today have grown to such an extent that one organization, the National
Thespian Society, is concerned exclusively with the problems of high
school dramatics. The American Educational Theatre Association, the
Speech Association of America, and the American National Theatre and
Academy, like the National Thespian Society, sponsor drama confer-
ences and festivals and promote committees and publications. Some
colleges and university extension divisions offer in-service training
courses. Although the problem of choosing the "right" play is no easier
now than it was twenty-five years ago, there are more plays from which
to choose. Publishers and play agents are more liberal in their royalty
arrangements and more playwrights are writing exclusively for the
high-school market. Such factors tend to make the preliminary work of
play production easier for the teacher than it was in the first twenty-
five years of the century.

Dramatics is not yet universally accepted as a curricular subject nor
do admissions offices of institutions of higher learning accept all dra-
matics courses equally. The subject will be more widely recognized,
however, as good teachers multiply and course content improves.
Twenty-five years ago there were relatively few trained teachers to
handle high-school dramatics, but today almost every college can offer
specialized courses in the theory and practice of theatre arts to young
people who plan to teach.52 In some large high schools the demand for
dramatic activity is so great that several full-time instructors are needed
to supervise the directing, mounting, lighting, and costuming of plays
and operettas, and to teach specific courses.

There are more kinds of dramatic activity in high schools today than
there were in the first twenty-five years of the twentieth century. Many
groups prepare special productions for children and participate in
regional drama festivals and in the celebration of International The-
atre Month. Interesting experiments with arena staging, choric dramas,
and living newspaper techniques illustrate the creative vitality of the

612 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

modern high-school theatre. Some groups tour their productions, bring-
ing living theatre to larger audiences and giving actors and stage crews
further experiences in adjusting to new conditions.

The values and objectives of dramatics remain fundamentally what
they were twenty-five years ago? except that more teachers in all fields
are aware of how important dramatic activity can be in developing a
student's personality. Educators and parents today look upon high-
school dramatics as a priceless opportunity to encourage avocational
activity, and to teach standards of appreciation.

Whatever status dramatics may have in the secondary-school program
today, it is the result of the vision, ability and enthusiasm of many
teachers and students who laid permanent foundations in the first
quarter of the twentieth century. Often working in isolation and under
incredible difficulties, teachers in charge of the early dramatics pro-
grams brought dignity and artistic integrity to "amateur theatricals"
and made the study and practice of the arts of the theatre an important
tool in the education of American youth.

Notes

1. Adelia W. Cone, "The Value of Dramatics in the Secondary School," Ohio
Educational Monthly, LXI (1912), 462-464.

2. J. M. Dorey, "A School Course in Dramatics," EJ, I (September, 1912),
425-430.

3. Eleanor Robson, "The Theatre and Education," Outlook, CXV (March 7,
1917), 412.

4. Report of the Committee on Plays in Schools and Colleges, J. M. Dorey,
chairman, EJ, IV (January, 1915), 34-40.

5. John Dolman, Jr., "Educational Dramatics/' QJSE, VII (April, 1921),
158-161.

6. Clarence D. Thorpe, "The Educational Function of High School Dramatics,"
QJSE, X (April, 1924), 116-127.

7. The place of dramatics can also be justified in a recent program aiming to
create better intergroup relations through education. The program appeared in The
New Jatk Xitnes, September 2, 1951, Section 4, p. 7, and presents the following
goals: To teach'TEe" moral worth of all people, to equalize as far as possible, in
school and outside, the conditions of free-enterprise competition, to promote posi-
tive co-operation across racial, creedal and other barrier lines, to apply these objec-
tives primarily in the education of young people as agents of change, to provide
leadership in school and community co-ordination and to use the techniques of the
psycho-social sciences in experimental efforts to change behaviors.

8. The plays in the following list, both three-act and one- act, come from articles,
books, and personal letters, but primarily from a questionnaire the late Ernest
Bavely sent to all Thespian Troupes in 1950. The seventy-six troupes which returned
the questionnaire are distributed all over the United States (with the majority in
Ohio) and in Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The articles "A" and "The" have been
omitted when they constitute the first word of the title.

Aaron Boggs; Above the Clouds, Adam and Eva; Admirable Crichton; Adven-
tures of Miss Brown; Advertising for a Husband; Alabama; Albany Depot; Alcestis;
Alexander Hamilton; Alice in Wonderland; All Aboard; All A Mistake; All-of-a-

DRAMATICS IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS, 1900-1925 613

Sudden Peggy; All-of-a-Sudden Smith; All on Account of Polly; All Smiles; All's
Well That Ends Well; Along Came Nancy; Always in Trouble; Amazons; Am I
Intruding; Among the Breakers; An American Citizen, Anchorhold; Angela Merici,
Ann of Old Salem; Arrival of Kitty; As You Like It; At the End of the Rainbow;
At the Movies, At the Sign of the Shooting Star; Aunt Maggie's Will.

Bachelors' Congress; Back Again Home Town; Back to the Farm; Barbara Friet-
chie; Barrett Cox and Co., Bashful Mr. Bobs, Beau of Bath; Beauty and the
Jacobin; Believe Me, Xantippe; Big Idea; Bird's Christmas Carol; Birthday of the
Infanta; Bishop's Candlesticks; Blossoming of Mary Ann; Blue Bird; Blue Stockings;
Blundering Billy; Boomerang; Box and Cox; Box of Monkeys; Brewster's Millions;
Brown of Harvard; Brown's In Town; Buddies; Burglar, By Way of the Secret
Passage.

Cabin Courtship; Cabinet Minister; Calico Cat, Camouflage of Shirley; Canter-
bury Pilgrims; Cappy Ricks; Captain Jinks of the Horse Marines; Captain Letter-
blair; Captain of Plymouth; Carrots; Case of Suspension; Cathleen Ni-Houlihan;
Caught in the Act; Chanticleer; Charley's Aunt; Charm School; Church Bazaar;
Christinas Carol; Christmas Chimes, Christmas Freedom; Christopher Jr.; Claim
Allowed; Clarence; Close to Nature, Co-Eds; College Days; College Town; Col-
lege Widow; Colonel's Maid; Comedy of Errors, Come Out of the Kitchen; Comus;
Contrary Mary; Converting Bruce; Cooks and Cardinals, Cool Collegians; Copper-
head; Corner of the Campus; County Chairman; Country Minister; Courtship of
Miles Standish; Cousin Kate; Cricket on the Hearth; Crazy Idea; Crisis; Cupid at
Vassar.

Daddy Long Legs; David Garrick; Deacon Dubbs; Dear Boy Graduate; Dear
Brutus; Dear Departed; Delegates from Denver; Dictator; Dido the Phoenician
Queen; Doin's at Titusville; Dolls; Dorothy's Neighbors; Down in Dixie; Dream that
Came True; Dried Pair of Suspenders; Drum Major; Dummy; Dust of the Road.

Eliza Comes to Stay; Elopement of Ellen; Emancipated Ones; Esmeralda;
Everyman.

Fabiola; Family Affair; Fanchon the Cricket; Fanny and the Servant Problem;
Feast of Dido; Feast of the Little Lantern; Fifi of the Toy Shop; Fifty-Fifty;
Fighting for Freedom; First Lady in the Land; First Thanksgiving; Flight of
Aeneas; Florist Shop; Flower of Yeddo; Flying Wedge; Fool; Fortune Hunter;
Four Little Spiggots; Four Seasons; Freshman; Fudge and the Burglars, Full House

Galliger; Genius; Gift of the Magi; Girl With the Green Eyes; Girls Over Here;
Glass Slipper; Glorious Girl; Goldbug; Golden Days; Green Stockings.

Half-Back Sandy, Hamlet, Hattie Makes Things Hum; Heart of Pierrot; Henry V;
Hiawatha; Hiawatha's Childhood; Hicks at College; Higbee of Harvard; His
Majesty Bunker Bean; His Model Wife; His Molly; His Utacle John; His Uncle's
Niece; Honor Bright; Hoodoo; Hottentot; Hot Water; Hour Glass; Houseboat on
the Styx; House Next Door; Hurry! Hurry! Hurry!; Hyacinth Halvey.

Icebound, Ici On Parle Francais; Importance of Being Earnest; Ingomar the
Barbarian; In India; In Old Madrid; Iron Hand; Isle of Chance; Is Your Name
Smith; It Pays to Advertise.

Jeanne D'Arc; Joan of Arc; Joint Owners in Spain, Judsons Entertain; Julius
Caesar; Just Like Judy.

Kentucky Belle; Kicked Out of College; Kiss in the Dark; Kingdom of Hearts;
Kleptomaniac.

Lady Bantok; Lady of Lyons; Lady of the Lake; Land of Night; Lend Me Five
Shillings; Lettre Chargee; Lion and the Mouse; Little Fowl Play; Little Game With
Fate; Little Teacher; Little Tycoon; Look Out for Paint; Lost, A Chaperone; Lost
Paradise; Lost Word; Love's Labour's Lost.

Macbeth; Maid of Yokohama; Maker of Dreams; Mammy's LiF Wild Rose; Man
from Home; Manikin-Minikin; Man on the Box; Maneuvers of Jane; Man Who
Married a Dumb Wife; Mary Jane's Pa; Mary's Millions; Masonic Ring; Me and
Otis; Melting Pot; Men, Maids and Matchmakers; Merchant of Venice; Merchant of
Venice Up-to-Date; Merely Mary Ann; Mice and Men; 'Mid Cherry Blossoms;

614 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

Midsummer Night's Dream; Milestones, Miss Civilization; Miss Dalton's Orchid;
Miss Fearless and Company; Miss Hobbs the Private Secretary; Missing Miss Miller;
Miss Nobody Else; Miss Somebody Else; Miss Topsy-Turvy; Mistaken Identity;
Modern Ananias; Mousetrap, Mr. Bob; Mrs. Bumpstead-Leigh; Mrs. Pat and the
Law; Mrs. Temple's Telegram; Mrs. Tubbs Does Her Bit, Mrs. Wiggs of the Cab-
bage Patch; Mrs. Wiggs o£ the Poultry Yard; Much Ado About Nothing; My Lord
in Livery.

Nathan Hale, Necklace; Neighbors; Nevertheless; New Administration; New Co-
Ed; New Lead; New Poor; Niobe; Night Off, Nothing But the Truth; Number 728.

Obstinate Family; Officer 666; Old Lady Shows Her Medals; Olives; One Must
Marry; One of the Eight; On Plymouth Rock; Our American Cousin; Our Aunt
from California; Our Boys; Our Country Cousin, Our Mrs. McChesney.

Pair of Sixes, Pa's Picnic; Passing of the Third Floor Back; Path Across the
Hills; Peg o' My Heart; Pennant; Penrod; Percy Pendleton's Predicament; Per-
plexing Situation; Phantom Tiger; Phyllis' Inheritance; Pied Piper of Hamelin;
Pierre Patelin; Piper; Pipes o' the Hills, Playgoers; Polly in Politics; Pomander
Walk; Pride and Prejudice; Prince Chap; Prince Charming; Princess; Private Secre-
tary, Professor's Mummy; Professor Pepp; Promoters; Proposal; Prunella; Pygmalion.

Quality Street; Queen Esther.

Ralph Roister Doister, Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm; Ready Money; Red Lamp;
Rejuvenation of Aunt Mary; Return of Hi- Jinks; Rip Van Winkle; Rivals; Robin
Hood, Rollo's Great Adventure; Romancers; Romantic Age; Romeo and Juliet;
Rosalie; Rosberry Shrub, Sec; Rosemaiden; Rose of Plymouth Town; Ruggles,
Runaways; Ruth in a Rush.

Safety First; Sauce for the Gosling; Savageland; School for Scandal; School
Mistress; Scientific Country School; Scrap of Paper; Secret Service; Senior,
Senor Pecan, Serious Situation in Burleigh's Room; Seven Keys to Baldpate;
Seventeen, Sham; She Stoops to Conquer; Sherwood; Silent Detective, Sister-
hood of Bridget; Six Who Pass While the Lentils Boil; Sleeping Car; Smilm*
Through; Sophomore; Spring Spasm; Star of Bethlehem; Stop Thief; Strenuous
Life; Strongheart, Sunday, Sunset; Superior Miss Pellender; Suppressed Desires;
Sweet Girl Graduate.

Tailor Made Man; Taking Father's Place; Taming of the Shrew; That Parlor
Maid, Things That Count; Thread of Destiny; Three Chauffeurs; Three Crooks
and a Lady; Three Wishes, Tiger House; Time of His Life; Tom Harrington;
Tommy's Wife; Tom Pinch; Too Much Johnson; Too Much of a Good Thing;
Toreadors; Touchdown; Toymaker of Nuremberg; Trouble at the Satterlees; Trust
Emily; Trysting Place; Tweedles; Twelfth Night; Twelve-Pound Look; Twig of
Thorn, Two Little Rebels.

Uncle Jimmy; Uncle John's Private Secretary; Uncle Josh's Folks; Uncle or
Nephew.

Valley Farm; Varsity Coach; Virginian Romance.

Wappin' Wharf; Wedding Bells; Wee Willie Winkie; What Happened to Jones;
When a Feller Needs a Friend; When a Man's Single; When Love is Young; When
Smith Stepped Out; When You've Earned Enough to Marry Dear; White Butterfly;
Whose Little Bride are You; Whole Town's Talking; Why the Chimes Rang;
Why Smith Left Home; Wonder Hat; Workhouse Ward; Wrong Mr. Right,
Wurzel-Flummery.

Year's Misinterpretations; Ye Olde District Skule, You Never Can Tell; Youth.
9. Helen O'Lemert, "Classical Play for High Schools," EJ, II (August, 1913),
386-388.

10. News and Notes, "In Honor of Shakespeare," EJ, V (1916), 516.

11. Azubah J. Latham, "The Making of a Festival," Teachers College Record,
XVI (1915), 248-264.

12. Margo Jones, Theatre-in-the-Round (New York, 1951), p. 38.

13. Anne Throop Craig, "The Development of a Dramatic Element in Educa-
tion," Pedagogical Seminary, XV (March, 1908), 78.

DRAMATICS IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS, 1900-1925 615

14. Alice Minnie Herts, "Dramatic Instinct— Its Use and Misuse/' Pedagogical
Seminary, XV (December, 1908), 553-554.

15. Maude Frank, ''Dramatization of School Classics," E], I (October, 1912),
476-481.

16. E. L. Norton and L. A. Ashleman, "Dramatics in the Teaching o£ a
Foreign Language/' Elementary School Teacher, VI (1906), 33-39.

17. Quoted by Elnora Whitman Curtis, "The Dramatic Instinct in Education/'
Pedagogical Seminary, XV (September, 1908), 326.

18. From Miss Thomas* letter to the writer, Nov. 20, 1950.

19. From Miss Shattuck's letter to the writer, September 15, 1950.

20. Laura G. Whitmire, "The Class Play," QJSE, VII (1921), 138-148.

21. From Miss Slick's letter to the writer, September 12, 1950.

22. "Fifty Years in the High School Theatre/* speech by Miss Evans at the
1950 Convention of the American Educational Theatre Association.

23. Quoted by Elnora Whitman Curtis, op. cit., p. 314.

24. Olive M. Price, Short Plays from American History and Literature for
Classroom Use (New York, 1925).

25. Franklin P. Baker, "Shakespeare in the Schools," EJ, V (May, 1916), 299-
309.

26. Harding Jordan Riverda, Extra-Curricular Activities in Elementary and
Secondary Schools (New York, 1928), p. 44.

27. E], VI (March, 1917), 197-198.

28. Frank G. Tompkins, "The Play Course in High School," E], IX (1920),
530-533.

29. Grace H. Stivers, "A High School Course in Dramatic Art/' QJSE, IV
(October, 1918), 434-447.

30. Ernest F. Haines, "The Drama Course in the University High School,"
School Review, XXIX (December, 1921), 746-757.

31. A. Bess Clark, "An Experiment in Problem Teaching/' E], VI (October,
1917), 535-538.

32. Mary V. Rodigan, "Dramatics in the High School," EJ, X (June, 1921),
316-326.

33. From a personal letter from Professor Alexander M. Drummond, Febru-
ary 23, 1953.

34. Walter H. Nichols, "The High School Play," E], III (December, 1914),
620-630.

35. Thatcher H. Guild, "Suggestions for the High School Play," E], II (Decem-
ber, 1913), 637-646.

36. Charles Townsend, Amateur Theatricals (New York, 1890),

37. Emerson Taylor, Practical Stage Direction for Amateurs (New York, 1916).

38. School Arts Magazine, XXIII (May, 1924).

39. Philip Burness, "Stagecraft— An Extra-Classroom Activity," Industrial Arts,
XIII (April, 1924), 152-154.

40. Carol McMillan, "The Growing Academic Recognition of Dramatic Pro-
duction," QJSE, X (1924), 23-29.

41. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Northwestern, 1923.

42. Ibid., Iowa, 1924.

43. Ibid., Southern California, 1926.

44. Ibid., Iowa, 1927.

45. Ibid., 1928.

46. Ibid., Northwestern, 1929.

47. Ibid., Kansas, 1930.

48. Ibid., Iowa, 1930.

49. See Walter H. Nichols, "High School Play."

50. O. B. Sperlin, "The Production of Plays in High School," EJ, V (March,
1916), 172-180.

616 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

51. Charlotte B. Herr, "The Value of Dramatic Work in the Teaching of
English" Journal of Education, LXVII (January, 23, 1908), 95-97.

52. Unfortunately, many college students cannot foresee the exact nature of
the teaching they will do and when, as teachers, they are given the job of
directing a play they cannot do it or themselves justice because of insufficient
training See "The High School Dramatic Director," an article by Opal Wigner
Boffo, Educational Theatre Journal, III (May, 1951), 119-125, for a description
of inadequate working conditions and poorly trained teachers in 151 schools of
northeastern Ohio.

£ / Professional Theatre Schools

in the Early Twentieth Century

FRED C. BLANCHARD

The elocutionist, orator and actor have one power in common to
possess before success can be reached. Our aim is to give this secret
power. Our work is altogether new, scientific, wonderful. The results
are instantaneous, marvelous. Terms lowest in country until we are
known.

The above advertisement appeared in 1902 in a widely circulated
professional magazine. The "School of Oratory" which thus so modestly
invited attention to its services was in a small city with a population o£
28,757, far from the commercial milieu of Broadway or any other the-
atrical producing center where, it is likely, secret powers could be culti-
vated in contemplative quiet. But this frank statement of purpose
reveals many of the major problems faced by the philosophers and
practitioners who conducted American Professional Schools of Acting
and Theatre during the first quarter of the twentieth century.

The teachers and proprietors of the well-known professional schools
of the period under discussion, in their pedagogy and organization,
exhibited the same concerns as their provincial competitor. They too
believed that their instruction would benefit almost any prospective
student, regardless of his vocational aims. They wanted their products
to succeed, theatrically and otherwise. They were inclined to believe
in the inherent powers of the individual, and were, of course, confident
that their own systems and methods could develop those powers. Like
their cut-rate colleague, they had to provide the kinds of services which
would enable them to stay in business.

By about 1900, the young actor was discovering that opportunities
for training were becoming more and more difficult to obtain. With the
completion of the railroad system and the organization of theatre as a

617

618 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

national big business, the "road" had become a profitable enterprise.
Producing became concentrated in a few large cities, especially in New
York. The old type of stock company training, so well exemplified in
Mrs. John Drew's company at the Arch Street Theatre in Philadelphia
and at the Boston Museum, was no longer readily available to the begin-
ner. Franklin H. Sargent, founder of the American Academy of Dra-
matic Art, wrote in 1899 that the stock companies, which he regarded
as schools of acting, were practically obsolete.1 There seems to be little
doubt that the old stock company was indeed a school for actors in
many ways. Stock provided regular experience under conditions of
actual productions; special rehearsals were conducted for the young
"walking ladies and gentlemen77 of the company to instruct them in the
skills, graces and deportment of the stage. Memoirs and autobiogra-
phies are full of testimony that stage managers and older actors were
often patient and effective tutors. Lester Wallack placed high value on
the disciplines of stock company rehearsal and performance.2 Mrs. Gil-
bert recalled many instances-of informal teaching by older actors in the
companies.3 Frederick Warde described the thorough training given
to the young members of stock companies.4 A long apprenticeship was
expected of the young actor before he would be entrusted with a
responsible line of parts.

It seems clear also that by 1900 the once well-established method of
private coaching to supplement experience had been generally dis-
carded. Sargent, in the article already cited, noted that private teachers
were plentiful in earlier days and that many well-known actors also had
assumed the responsibility of teaching a few students. Some, like James
E. Murdoch, George VandenhofT, and F. F. Mackay, eventually became
better known as teachers than as actors, and sought to organize and
formalize their methods of instruction. But by the end of the nineteenth
century, few actors of high reputation were either willing or able to
teach. The kind of theatrical organization in America which had made
possible the training of stage aspirants by the traditional master-pupil
method, still associated with the teaching of other arts, was in the
process of change. The difficulty experienced by the young actor or
actress in obtaining adequate training was being recognized and fre-
quently discussed. Professional schools in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries stepped in to fill the roles of the private teacher and
the actor-teacher.

Other forces also contributed to the founding and growth of theatre
schools. The interest in declamation and vocal expression had not
abated. The development of the platform reading of entire plays by
gifted performers like Leland Powers may have brought the stage and
the platform nearer together. The scientific methods of Darwin and

PROFESSIONAL THEATRE SCHOOLS 619

Spencer led to the desire to organize all kinds of knowledge. The insti-
tutionalizing of theatre, especially in France, and the formalizing of
instruction by Delsarte and his followers led to eager imitation in
America. The ardent discipleship of Steele MacKaye carried the theories
of Delsarte into many theatrical schools, popularizing a so-called
"natural" system of training allegedly much unlike the older Rush-
Murdoch method which was being criticized as stilted and artificial.
Post-Ibsen playwriting and post-Belasco staging turned from nine-
teenth-century practice. The cult of the everyday and natural was in
the ascendant. The teaching of the art and craft of theatre was bound
to be affected as new schools were founded.

What should we regard as a professional school of acting and the-
atre? An accurate and simple definition is this: Any school which has
as one of its major purposes the preparation of its students for the
vocation of acting or some other form of theatre practice. Within the
scope of this definition, the selection of appropriate schools for study
is difficult. A few schools held vocational theatrical training as their
principal and almost sole aim; they are no problem. The many schools
of "oratory" and "expression" can hardly be excluded because prepara-
tion for the professional stage was considered an important though not
the only aim of their training. Universities and colleges we shall observe
only in passing. For the most part, their development as "professional"
or "vocational" schools of theatre practice came near the end of the
period of study or in later years. We shall take notice of schools of other
kinds when they seem to have moved in the direction of specific train-
ing for theatre practice.

Ill

Although professional theatrical production became more and more
centralized, professional schools as here defined were located in all
parts of the country. By way of example, advertisements and news
items in theatre magazines from 1900 to 1925 mention schools located
in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Cincinnati, Cleve-
land, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Washington, St. Louis, Denver, Los
Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. There were, of course, many others
in cities large and small. Such geographical distribution of schools is
evident throughout the entire twenty-five years under consideration.
Many schools suddenly appeared and quickly died; a few have survived
all vicissitudes. The professional studio-school is still with us, and

620 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

despite the great development since 1925 of the colleges and universi-
ties as centers of professional instruction, it is likely to remain for many
years to come.

Some rough classification of these many schools is possible, grouped
according to their origins and their stated or apparent purposes at the
time of their founding,

Theatrical Schools

The "theatrical" schools, for want of a better term, were founded by
theatrical practitioners or other persons who were close to the profes-
sional theatre. They did not grow out of other kinds of organizations;
they were schools from the beginning. They were begun with the
clearly stated aim of providing preparation for work in the professional
theatre. In the case o£ those schools which survived until 1925 or later,
the professional aim has remained the primary one, although the cur-
riculum has often been modified to include other social and profes-
sional purposes.

The School of Acting under the guidance of Dion Boucicault, founded
more than a decade before the period of this study, may well be typical
of the school which is closely connected with the professional theatre.
Constance Morris, a one-time pupil of the school, described its method
of operation.5 It was formed in the old age of Dion Boucicault-actor,
playwright, director, and theatre leader through many years in England
and America.

Boucicault was backed in the venture by two leading theatrical man-
agers of the period, A. M. Palmer and Augustin Daly, among others.
The stated purpose of the planned three-year course was to discover
and train young people of talent. No tuition was to be charged, and
placement in the theatre was expected. Constance Morris describes the
try-outs for membership, which were held before a committee of Bouci-
cault, Palmer, Daly and others. Out of one hundred aspirants, fifty-three
were chosen for the course. These were divided into two groups accord-
ing to ability and accomplishment, the first group to be taught by
Boucicault and the second by Theodore Corbett. Frequent assignments
of individual roles and parts of scenes were made, and the student per-
formances were then criticized and corrected by the teachers, projbably
much in the manner of the old stock company stage manager. Well-
known actors and actresses gave demonstrations and lectures. Semi-
annual examinations were conducted at the Madison Square Theatre,
before such Broadway stars as John Drew, James Lewis, Ada Rehan,
Helena Modjeska, Otis Skinner, Wilton Lackaye, Rose CogHan and
Mrs. Gilbert, some of whom would act as judges. According to Miss

PROFESSIONAL THEATRE SCHOOLS 621

Morris, the successful student performers were placed in professional
companies.

The American Academy of Dramatic Arts in New York has main-
tained a close relationship with the professional theatre from its first
year in 1884 until the present time. Although its founder and long-time
president, Franklin H. Sargent, had early training at Harvard and in the
Boston University School of Oratory, he soon became employed in
professional theatre activities, and was engaged in the instruction of
young actors at the Madison Square Theatre in 1883. In 1884, he was
associated with Steele MacKaye and Gustave Frohman in operating
the Lyceum Theatre School, which became the American Academy of
Dramatic Arts in 1885. In 1897, the Academy joined with the Empire
Theatre School, and for a number of years special student performances
were given at the Empire. The purpose of the Academy as stated in
1900 was to give "a broad and practical training to those desiring to
make acting their profession," an aim which has apparently remained
constant.6 The school has received the support and encouragement of
professional theatre leaders; its Board of Trustees and Advisory Board
from 1900 to 1925 included such names as Charles and Daniel Froh-
man, John Drew, William Gillette, David Belasco, Bronson Howard,
Augustus Thomas, Winthrop Ames, and William H. Crane. Among its
staff members from 1900 to 1925 may be noted such familiar names as
Charles Jehlinger, Eva Alberti, May Robson, William T. Price, William
C, DeMille, William J. Dean, Algernon Tassin, Helena Chalmers, Philip
Loeb, and Donald Oenslager. Like other schools of its kind, it has
sought to provide a professional showcase for its advanced students.

The Alvienne Academy in New York was founded in 1894 by Claude
M. Alvienne, actor and director, and is now under the management of
Mrs. Neva Alvienne. In current brochures, this school is referred to as
the Alvienne Academy, School of Theatre and Stock Company. It is
asserted that "the Alvienne was one of the first leading Dramatic
Schools to introduce the stock theatre system for production expe-
rience." 7 Although an early catalog describes the school as "a co-educa-
tional institution dedicated to the promotion of expression arts and
culture," the idea of professional training was apparently uppermost.8
It should be noted that courses during its early years included stage
dancing, vaudeville, and instrumental music, and Mrs. Alvienne states
that the fundamental emphasis at the school has always been profes-
sional.

The National Dramatic Conservatory was founded in New York in
1898 by F. F. Mackay, character actor since 1863 at such famous
theatres as the Arch Street in Philadelphia, the Globe in Boston and the
Union Square in New York. Mackay taught at the conservatory until a

622 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

few months before his death in 1923, at the age of ninety-one. His work
was certainly directed toward prof essional theatre participation, and his
book on acting technique, long regarded as a standard, still has much
of interest for the actor of today.

In 1900, the Stanhope-Wheatcroft Dramatic School in New York
conducted private and class lessons in practical theatre subjects, and
was clearly interested in the professional careers of its students. Alfred
Ayres, well-known as a critic and writer on acting as well as a teacher,
offered instruction in dramatic art and elocution. The actress, Rose
Eytinge, prepared pupils for "stage, platform, pulpit and parlor."

One highly specialized school was the American School of Playwrit-
ing, conducted by William T. Price, critic and writer on playwriting.
Later New York schools for actors included the Theodora Irvine Studio
and the Alberti School, both well known for professional coaching.

Other early schools emphasizing professional theatrical training
include the Hart Conway School of Acting in Chicago, affiliated with
Chicago Musical College, later conducted by J. H. Gilmour; and also
in Chicago, the Alden School of Acting. The Edwin Forrest School of
Dramatic Arts in Philadelphia was directed by Robert C. McGee; the
department of Dramatic Art of the Hayward School of Cincinnati was
managed by Thomas Jefferson Wheatley, formerly of the Daly Com-
pany; the Robert Hickman Dramatic School was operated in Wash-
ington, D. C.

Mrs. Bessie V. Hicks, well known as an actress in her native Phila-
delphia, founded a School of Dramatic Arts under her name in 1919,
and was its active director until her death in 1951. Mrs. Hicks believed
in the encouragement and development of stage talent in young people,
a policy continued by the present administrator of the school, John A.
Bowman. The practical application of principles is stressed in radio,
television and theatre courses. In a recent interview, Mr. Bowman
pointed out that although the school offers many courses not designed
for professional theatre aspirants, the practical vocational aspects of the
program continue to be a chief concern of the school. Again, opportuni-
ties for professional placement are provided. In 1946, the school was
reorganized as a nonprofit institution, the American Foundation of
Dramatic Arts, but is still identified as the Bessie V. Hicks School of
Dramatic Arts.

The Dauphin School of Arts in Philadelphia was not founded until
1928, later than the period being considered, but its inception was
somewhat earlier, and stemmed directly from pioneering work in com-
mercial radio broadcasting. The professional nature of the school is
indicated by the recent statement that "courses are designed to enable
the student to establish himself without delay in his chosen field of

PROFESSIONAL THEATRE SCHOOLS 623

art." 9 Mariam Hewlett, director o£ the school, is herself a teacher of
dramatic art, music, and dance.

Almost at the end of the period, a professional school was founded
which was to begin a "movement" of importance in theatrical training.
During the season of 1922-1923, the Moscow Art Theatre appeared in
New York with a considerable repertory and a company which included
its leading players. Within a year, Richard Boleslavsky, trained at the
Moscow Art Theatre, was in the American theatrical capital announc-
ing the opening of the Laboratory Theatre School, the aim of which
was the founding of "a Creative Theatre in America." (Capitals not
mine.) The Laboratory Theatre combined a school and a working
theatre, with all students, in addition to scheduled courses, taking part
in every production. The theatrical invasion was on in full force, and
Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko soon became easier to pro-
nounce than Booth and Belasco. An advertising page in a drama
magazine, otherwise filled with theatrical announcements, prominently
displayed an advertisement of a Russian restaurant, with appropriate
food and music. Russian fare, artistic and culinary, was about to be-
come a regular part of the menu.

Stock Company Schools

Several instances are found of schools which were operated in con-
nection with regularly producing commercial theatres. These are, of
course, clearly professional schools, but are unlike any thus far con-
sidered. The formation of schools in connection with such professional
theatres comes late in our period.

Among the best known of these was the Henry Jewett School of
Acting operated in conjunction with the Boston Repertory Theatre.
Mr. and Mrs. Henry Jewett directed a professional repertory company
at the Copley Theatre from 1916 to 1924. The Jewetts obtained sufficient
support to build their own playhouse, which opened in November,
1925. In the new theatre, a school of acting, design, and playwriting
was conducted.

The Detroit Civic Theatre, under the management of Jessie Bonstelle,
had its inception in regular commercial stock. Reorganized as a civic,
nonprofit enterprise, it operated a theatrical training school as well.
The Stock Company of the old and honorable Elitch's Gardens in Den-
ver, founded in 1893, also operated a school from time to time.

The School of the Theatre of the Threshold Playhouse in New York
was founded by Mrs. Clare Tree Major in 1921. The stock type of expe-
rience was anticipated for students before their graduation. By 1923,
Mrs. Major was placing much emphasis on the professional production

624 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

of plays for children, a field in which her companies have gained
reputation.

The Mae Desmond School of the Theatre in Philadelphia was derived
from a professional theatre group, the Mae Desmond Players, who were
well known in Philadelphia, in other Eastern cities, and on the road.
The School, founded by Miss Desmond and her associates in 1938, in
recent years has been combined with a professional company which
tours with plays for children.

The Washington Square Players and the Theatre Guild also were
briefly in the school business. Whether these and the other stock com-
pany schools have had any great effect on the teaching of theatre art in
America is impossible to say. It is likely that the theatres have been
more important than the schools in their impact on our theatrical scene.

Schools of Expression

Many of the institutions first known as schools of Expression or Ora-
tory cannot be excluded from this study. The widespread interest in
mastery of the spoken word and the expressive body is amply illustrated
by the numerous schools and private teachers of expression, by the
great popularity of platform reading, by the inevitable "reader" in
Chautauqua and other lyceum circuits, by journals devoted to the sub-
ject, by associations and conferences of elocutionists and "expression-
ists/' The files of Werners Magazine from 1892 to 1902 show the extent
and diversity of these "expression" activities. Many teachers and direc-
tors of dramatic art, of amateur groups in particular but of profes-
sionally oriented organizations as well, were graduates of the schools
of expression. Professional theatre training came to be an important and
even a major aim of their programs.

The study of oratory and expression was not, in 1900, any innovation
in American education. Indeed, it had gained a place of widely recog-
nized importance. Boston was for many decades the center of instruc-
tion for this kind of training, and three Boston schools were particularly
important— Emerson College of Oratory, the School of Expression, and
the Leland Powers School of the Spoken Word.

As Edythe May Renshaw points out, the founders of these schools-
Charles Wesley Emerson, Samuel Silas Curry, and Leland Powers-
were all students of Prof. L. B. Monroe at Boston University School of
Oratory.10 Franklin H. Sargent, founder of the American Academy of
Dramatic Arts, was also one of Monroe's pupils. Monroe was interested
in the theories of Delsarte and Steele MacKaye, and was well known
as a platform reader.

In 1880, Charles Wesley Emerson founded the school first known as

PROFESSIONAL THEATRE SCHOOLS 625

the Boston College of Oratory, renamed the next year as the Monroe
Conservatory of Oratory in honor of Emerson's former teacher. By
1886, the conservatory was incorporated as the Monroe College of Ora-
tory and had a faculty of a dozen teachers. In 1890, the name was again
changed, this time to Emerson College of Oratory, by which title it was
known for almost forty years. In 1889, Henry Laurence Southwick,
known for many years as a lecturer and interpreter of Shakespeare,
joined Emerson in the administration of the school. Mrs. Jessie Eldridge
Southwick and William Howland Kenny became officers of the institu-
tion. On Emerson's retirement in 1903, William James Rolfe, Shake-
spearean scholar and writer, became the second president, to be suc-
ceeded by Southwick in 1908. President Southwick held the post until
his death in 1932. The college gradually moved in the direction of
formal academic recognition. A four-year course was established in
1913; the right to confer the degree of Bachelor of Literary Interpreta-
tion was granted by the Massachusetts legislature in 1919. The B.L.L
from Emerson soon became familiar in the profession of speech arts
teaching. In 1936, the college was granted the privilege of awarding
the B.A. degree; the M.A. degree was added in 1941. In 1939, the
phrase "of Oratory" was deleted from the title, and from then on the
school has been officially known simply as Emerson College.

Current Emerson College publications acknowledge and reassert
some of the fundamental theories of its founder— his conviction that the
power of oral expression transcends any practical use to which it may
be put, his aim to develop personality and character as well as speech,
his belief in education through self-development. The liberal arts
aspects of the program are today similar to those of most American col-
leges. Particular fields of concentration in this specialized institution
are now Broadcasting (Radio and Television), Drama, and Speech.
Many courses are of a practical, vocational nature, and the workshop
kind of experience is provided in each field. This is to be noted not only
in the regular college, but in the numerous courses of the evening exten-
tion division. The college places considerable emphasis on teacher
training, but is also clearly interested in the placement of its graduates
in the professional theatre. A recent pamphlet, for example, points out
the high proportion of the graduates of the radio division now profes-
sionally employed. Emerson College began as a school of oratory and
expression; it has become a degree-granting institution, although still
a specialized one. But it has been a professional theatre school as well.

Samuel Silas Curry succeeded Lewis B. Monroe as Professor of Ora-
tory at Boston University. His assumption of this post and his conduct-
ing of private classes may be said to comprise the informal foiinding of
the School of Expression. Three years later Curry married Anna

626 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

Baright, who was already conducting her own School of Elocution and
Expression. Their classes were merged, and a prospectus was issued
the next year. Thus was begun the institution to be known for fifty
years as the School of Expression. The stated aim of its founder was
"to supply to all who use the voice, a course of instruction in all
branches of Expression as scientific and thorough as can be found in
any phase of education." Curry continued to hold his position at Boston
University until 1888, but from then until his death in 1921, he was the
active head of the School of Expression. The School acknowledges the
encouragement, during the years of Curry's administration, of many
prominent people. Dr. Curry was himself a minister, and among the
patrons of the school were several well-known churchmen of Boston
and other cities. Others who have been cited include Henry N. Hudson,
Alexander Graham Bell, Alexander Melville Bell, Charles W. Eliot,
William Dean Howells, and Joseph Jefferson. Like Emerson College,
the School of Expression became a degree-granting institution; in 1939,
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts granted the School the right to
award the degrees of Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in
Oratory. The name was changed to Curry School, and since 1943 it has
been officially designated as Curry College. In 1952, the college was
moved from Commonwealth Avenue in Boston to a campus in nearby
Milton.

The list of graduates who have become speech and drama educators
and theatre performers is a long one. Recent course offerings show sub-
ject matter concentrations in Speech, Stage Arts, and Radio, many of a
vocational nature. The interests of Curry College, the onetime School
of Expression, have not been far removed from professional theatre
practice.

Still another Boston institution of wide reputation is the Leland
Powers School, which has followed a pattern quite different from that
of Emerson College and Curry College. It has become a completely
professional school. The school was founded in 1904 by Leland Powers
and his wife, Carol Hoyt Powers. Leland Powers had been a student of
Monroe and had later taught with both Emerson and Curry. He was
highly regarded as a platform reader, especially of the impersonated
play; he was an artist with the Redpath Lyceum Bureau for many years.
Mrs. Powers was a graduate of Emerson School and a member of the
Emerson faculty. She was also a professional platform reader, and well
known as a teacher of Bible reading. The purpose of the school at its
founding was training in the "Art of Expression through the Spoken
Word." Indeed, it was first called a "School of the Spoken Word." Ac-
cording to Haven W. Powers, now Principal of the school, students
were trained for both the professional and educational fields.11 He

PROFESSIONAL THEATRE SCHOOLS 627

states that at present most graduates prepare for a professional career.

Mr. Haven Powers observes that the basic teachings and policy of
the school have remained the same. Certain fundamental courses are
now required of all students, such as the Speaking Voice, Diction, Ex-
pressive Movement, Literary Interpretation, and Philosophy of Expres-
sion. Course descriptions indicate that the books of Leland Powers are
still the primary texts for some of these courses. However, the school
has been alert to change with changing theatre forms. It became a
School of Theatre and Radio, and now is known as a School of Radio,
Television, and Theatre. It provides facilities for practice in produc-
tion, and most of the courses in the two-year curriculum are planned
for vocational theatre training.

Many members of the faculty of the Powers school have been pro-
fessionals in some form of theatre practice. Among these have been
Leland Powers and Carol Hoyt Powers, Rachel Noah France, Phidelah
Rice, Elizabeth Pooler Rice, Maude Scheerer, John Craig, Arthur Hoi-
man, and Alan Mowbray, known as readers, actors, or directors. Today
the president of the corporation of the school is Moroni Olsen, actor,
producer, and director. A long list of recent graduates now engaged in
theatre work attests to the interest of the school in professional place-
ment. Leland Powers School, then, founded as a "School of the Spoken
Word," has had an active interest from the first in professional theatre
training. Today it is definitely a professional school.

As has already been indicated, interest in expression, oratory, the
spoken word— call it what we may— was widespread. During the early
years of the period being considered, many schools other than those in
the "Hub" of expression are to be noted. A few examples will here
suffice. The New York School of Expression directed by F. Townsend
Southwick and Genevieve Stebbins, the Columbia College of Expres-
sion in Chicago, the Hayward School of Expression and Dramatic Art
in Cincinnati, the Greeley School of Elocution and Dramatic Art in
Boston, and the Morse School of Expression in St. Louis— these and
many others were conducting training which was in part planned for
aspirants to the theatrical profession.

Community Theatre and Art Theatre Schools

A considerable number of the producing organizations of that part
of the theatre somewhat patronizingly called "Off-Broadway" or "Trib-
utary Theatre" developed schools as an integral part of their organi-
zation. Nearly all of these community or art theatres were started
before the terminal date of this investigation, but did not form schools
until after 1925, Some began as amateur organizations during a period

628 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

of protest against the alleged evils of the commercial theatre; others
sought as amateurs to provide dramatic fare to communities bereft by
the near-disappearance of local stock companies and the decline of
the road. As they achieved stability and success, they acquired build-
ings and real estate and found themselves in the professional or near-
professional theatre business. It is true that the schools attached to
these organizations were not functioning until after 1925. However, the
parent theatres were well within our period, and the prominence which
some of them achieved, not only as theatres but as highly successful
schools, may warrant at least brief acknowledgment here.

The Cleveland Playhouse began under the guidance of Raymond
O'Neill as an amateur producing society in 1916. It made its first step
toward professionalization in 1921, when Frederic McConnell assumed
direction. His work gave rise to regular productions by a professional
company and to the building of an excellent theatre plant. Another
result of his efforts was the formation of a school for instruction in all
branches of theatre art. For a number of years, the Playhouse has also
conducted classes and a theatre program as a part of the Chautauqua
summer program. As theatre and school, the Cleveland Playhouse has
achieved high repute.

The Goodman Theatre was established in Chicago by the Chicago
Art Institute with the aid of a gift from Mr. and Mrs. William O. Good-
man in 1924. Thomas Wood Stevens left Carnegie Institute to direct
the theatre. Organization of a theatre school was an early development.
B. Iden Payne and Whitford Kane soon joined the staff. Under the later
direction of Maurice Gnesin, the Goodman Theatre School has con-
tinued to maintain high standards as an institution for training in
theatre,

In California, the Pasadena Community Playhouse was founded in
1917 by Gilmor Brown. Mr. Brown is still the Supervising Director;
Charles F. Prickett, now the Executive Vice-President, has been asso-
ciated with Brown in the playhouse enterprise since 1918. This long
and highly successful partnership has resulted in a community theatre
and school, excellently housed and well staffed. In 1927 and 1928, the
Playhouse conducted summer sessions in conjunction with the Univer-
sity of California Extension Division. It began its own school on a year
round basis in the fall of 1928.

Another interesting theatre and school was that founded by Miss
Nellie Cornish in Seattle in 1918. Its inclusion in this section is perhaps
inappropriate, for it was the outgrowth of the School of the Arts, includ-
ing Music and Dance, which Miss Cornish had begun in 1914. Accord-
ing to Miss Cornish, theatre was added to the program of the school
with the specific object of giving the ballet pupils a theatre back-

PROFESSIONAL THEATRE SCHOOLS 629

ground.12 But for many years the Cornish School served as a community
theatre for Seattle, with regular productions of modern and classical
plays. In pleasant and efficient housing, the Cornish Theatre was a
definite part of the cultural life of the city. Performers included staff
members, advanced students, and occasional guests. Among the well-
known members of the faculty were Maurice Browne, Ellen Van
Volkenburg, Moroni Olsen, Burton and Florence James, Herbert Gel-
lendre, Jacques Mercier, and Alexander Koiransky. Miss Cornish retired
from her position as director of the School in 1939. Soon thereafter,
theatre instruction was dropped from the program of the school. But
for almost twenty-five years, the Cornish Theatre had provided theatre
training of professional calibre.

New York City has not furnished fertile ground for the flowering of
the community or art theatre type of school. Such schools have ap-
peared from time to time; they have usually had exciting but short lives.
One of the most successful and the hardiest of these is The Neighbor-
hood Playhouse School of the Theatre. The Neighborhood Playhouse
began as an amateur diversion at the Henry Street Settlement. Under
the patronage and guidance of Alice and Irene Lewisohn, it soon
became a professional company, appearing in a varied repertoire dur-
ing the years from 1915 to 1927. Although the company conducted
classes in speech, movement, and allied arts, teaching was always re-
lated to the problems of specific performances. In 1927, the Lewisohns
gave up their producing at The Neighborhood Playhouse on Grand
Street, and turned it over officially to the Henry Street Settlement.

Doris Fox Benardete has assessed the work of the 1915-1927 period
in a detailed study.13 In 1928, the Lewisohns established the School of
the Theatre in an uptown location. Whereas the older organization
was a producing theatre, the new one was a theatre school from the
first. The school is now directed by Rita Wallach Morgenthau; the
faculty includes Martha Graham, Sanford Meisner, and Paul Morrison.
According to a recent publication, "the curriculum is based on the pro-
fessional experience of The Neighborhood Playhouse in its years of
experimental productions— productions which reflected the concept of
theatre as an organic expression of life interpreted through a fusion of
the arts." 14 Its courses in Movement, Acting, Make-up, and Voice are
planned for the aspirant to professional theatre work.

Another form of theatre enterprise should at least be mentioned here,
though the principal development did not occur until the 1930's. The
summer theatres— amateur, semi-professional and professional— often
conducted schools as well as theatres. Usually for a fee, these com-
panies offered instruction and training in acting, staging, and manage-
ment. Though sometimes abused, this apprenticeship system of profes-

630 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

sional education has no doubt given valuable experience to many
beginners.

Colleges and Universities

Although theatre instruction in colleges and universities is beyond
the scope of this study, one must recognize that in a few institutions,
theatre training took a professional turn. Usually beginning as extra-
curricular activity or as a minor part of academic work in departments
of English, theatre work in many institutions has moved strongly in the
direction of professional training. Among the colleges and universities
supplying special theatre training and experience before 1925 were
Wisconsin, North Dakota, North Dakota State, North Carolina, New
York University, Iowa, Northwestern, Washington, Cornell, and Har-
vard. There were others, of course. As courses multiplied and became
intensive, theatre education and production in such institutions had
mixed aims— partly informational and cultural, partly professional.
Yale's Department of Drama, established in 1925 with George Pierce
Baker as head, attracted many students with definite professional
aspirations.

Unique among the colleges engaged in theatre work is Carnegie Insti-
tute of Technology in Pittsburgh. The Department of Drama there,
opened in February, 1914, with an incomplete theatre and eighteen
students, had a strongly professional purpose from the first. According
to Elizabeth Kimberley, Assistant Head of the Drama Department, "it
rendered a pioneering service in this country by recognizing the theatre
as an art which demanded of its practitioners the same type of syste-
matic and progressive technical training and the cultural background
demanded of workers in other arts." 15 This purpose is still held. Unlike
other pioneers in the university theatre field, Thomas Wood Stevens
was able to provide a complete four-year degree curriculum in Theatre
and Allied Arts at once and to have the use of a building and equipment
designed to carry out its purposes. Carnegie was a technical institute;
the new department became a division of the School of Applied Design.
As Stevens wrote soon after his theatre opened, "Carnegie Institute had
already established a four-year course to the B.A. degree, with a long
list of general studies, severe training in technical practice, and an
emphasis on the cultural as well as the scientific— an appreciation and
historical knowledge as well as an application of paint to canvas." 1G
The curriculum shows many courses which were professional or voca-
tional in nature. Under Stevens and later B. Iden Payne and Chester
Wallace, and with a faculty including Woodman Thompson, Theodore
Viehman, and Alexander Wyckoff, Carnegie's school of theatre soon

PROFESSIONAL THEATRE SCHOOLS 631

became a training and proving ground for professionally minded stu-
dents. Many of its graduates are leaders in some aspect of theatre and
today nine-tenths of its students are headed for professional theatre
work. It can surely be considered a professional theatre school; the
same might well be said of some other university departments of later
years.

A general view of the courses taught in the professional schools from
1900-1925 can be sketched adequately by focusing upon course listings
of the American Academy of Dramatic Arts. Complete catalogs and
course descriptions are on file, and have been made available for study.

In 1900, the curriculum in the first, or Junior, year of the two-year
course was divided into three parts, referred to under the titles of
Action, Diction, and Stage Work. "Action" courses were given in Physi-
cal Training, Dancing, Pantomime, Fencing, and Life Studies; "Dic-
tion" consisted of work in Vocal Training, Phonetics, Vocal Expression,
English Language, and Dramatic Literature; "Stage Work" included
Stage Mechanics, Makeup, Costuming, Playwriting, Art Decoration,
Stage Business, Stage Rehearsals, and Performances. The first year was
known as the Technical Training School. The second, or Senior, year
was devoted to advanced classroom studies, rehearsal of practice plays,
and the production of plays by class members. The work apparently
proceeded from study and practice of basic techniques to their applica-
tion and use in production.

The courses at Mackay's School in 1900 included Vocal Gymnastics,
Technique of Speech, Dancing, Fencing, Swedish Gymnastics, Analy-
sis of Emotions, Reading and Rehearsing of Plays, and General and
Dramatic Literature. Another dramatic school offered Acting, Recita-
tion, Voice Production, and Fencing among its courses. At about the
same time, a perhaps typical school of Oratory was giving courses in
Elocution, Oratory, Physical Culture, Voice Culture, Rhetoric, Psy-
chology, Literature, and (under the Bell influence) Visible Speech.
Another school listed studies in the fields of Oratory, Physical Culture,
Literature, and Dramatic Art. A School of Expression offered courses
in Oratory, Voice Culture, Breathing, Physical Culture, Dancing, and
Fencing, and observed that stammering and defective speech were
positively corrected. Titles of the courses above suggest that the schools
gave emphasis to the technical training of voice and body.

From 1900 to 1925, courses at the American Academy did not greatly
vary. In 1910, new courses appeared in Dramatic Reading and Dra-
matic Analysis, dealing with the development of the imagination and
individual creative powers. These courses were grouped in a separate

632 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

Department of Conception. No playwriting course was offered. Bulle-
tins for 1910 make a strong point of the production of standard dramatic
works of various periods, such as Maeterlinck, Jonson, Goldoni, Con-
greve, Ibsen, Shaw, Rostand, Echegaray, Strindberg, Tolstoi, and
Shakespeare. Other schools similarly show few changes.

At its beginning in 1914, the Department of Drama at Carnegie Insti-
tute of Technology required the study of Dramatic Literature, French,
History of Theatre, Drawing, Scene Design, Costume, Dancing, Dic-
tion. Rehearsal and Performance and a strong fourth-year theatre
specialization. Among its courses in 1916, the Columbia College of Ex-
pression included Platform Presentation, Interpretative Dancing, and
Festival and Pageantry.

In 1920, the American Academy bulletins show considerable re-
arrangement, but no important changes in course offerings. An Alvienne
School publication of about this date shows an organization of courses
somewhat similar to that of the American Academy. The Alvienne
curriculum was divided into two departments, Technical and Expres-
sional. The Technical Department courses included Physical Training
(Health, Posture, Gesture, Fencing, and Dancing), Voice Training
(Breath Control, Diction, Resonance, Phonetics), and Stage Training
(Business, Costume, Make-up). The Expressional Department courses
were in Physical Expression (Pantomime, Life Study, Characteriza-
tion), Oral Expression (Interpretation, Delivery, Line Reading, Dia-
lects), and Theatre Practice (Rehearsals, Productions). The Columbia
College of Expression in 1921 listed courses in Voice Development,
Selection of Plays, Pantomime, Modern Drama, Interpretation of Prose
and Poetry, Directing, Stage Decoration, Costume Design, and Com-
munity Drama.

Cornish School in Seattle in 1922 was teaching Voice and Diction,
Phonetics, Play Reading, Pantomime, Dalcroze Eurythmics, Dancing,
Fencing, Music and Art Appreciation, Costume and Scene Design,
Make-up, and Play Rehearsal and Performance. Among its courses in
1921, the Morse School of Expression in St. Louis listed Physical Train-
ing, Story Telling, Vocal Expression, Dramatic Art, Stage Technique,
and (with an apparent bow to Percy MacKaye whose Civic Masque had
been produced in St. Louis in 1914) Pageantry. The Grace Hickox
Studios in Chicago offered such courses as Expression and Dramatic
Art, Dalcroze Eurythmics, Story Telling, Playwriting, and Stagecraft.
Other school announcements show an interest in Children's Dramatics,
Pageantry, and Community Drama.

Again in 1925, bulletins of the American Academy showed few
changes in course offerings. Summer courses for teachers were being
advertised, based on the regular curriculum, and several courses had

PROFESSIONAL THEATRE SCHOOLS 633

already been given under the auspices of the Extension Division of
Columbia University. By 1925, the "Art Theatres" were engaged in
teaching, usually by informal workshop methods, but with specific
courses like Dancing, Music, Choral Speech, Diction, and Stagecraft.
As has been already noted, Boleslavsky had begun his Laboratory Thea-
tre School in 1923, under the announced workshop plan of active par-
ticipation in all phases of production.

Many of the courses offered in 1900 are still being taught today,
sometimes under slightly different titles. The nature and direction of
change in the quarter-century are signified by such courses as Dalcroze
Eurythmics, Community Drama, Pageantry, and Children's Theatre.
The Dalcroze system was becoming known in America; the "Little
Theatre movement" had begun and was growing; community drama
had been encouraged by the work of Percy MacKaye and national and
local cultural societies. There is, toward the end of the period, greater
emphasis on staging rather than acting. This, too, might well be ex-
pected, as new ideas were being brought into theatre by the designers
and directors. Although the professional schools seem to have held to
many of the theories of their founders, they made changes to suit new
conditions.

The listing of courses taught may have some interest but little mean-
ing, for courses with the same title can well be taught with quite oppos-
ing aims. The theories held by teachers of acting are accordingly a
matter of valid concern. Some categorizing of the underlying ideas of
the teachers of acting at about 1900 must be attempted, although the
classification of methods of acting cannot be iron bound. In actual
practice, it is likely that most good teachers used a combination of
methods.

First, the successful professional actors who became teachers seem
to comprise one group. It must be remembered that the typical nine-
teenth-century organization was that of the stock company, with long
runs the exception. Actors were expected to maintain a repertory of
standard parts and to be able to prepare new roles on short notice and
with little rehearsal. This meant that good actors were required to
develop skills, graces, and accomplishments which could be easily
transferred from one role to another. In experience and training, young
actors were presented with graded tasks, increasing in difficulty,
until they could be entrusted with important roles. Following the
advice and example of their preceptors, they sought to master the
methods established by experience and tradition. The good actor
became a master of audience effect, fully able to create the semblance

634 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

of emotion through controlled voice and body symbols clearly under-
stood by theatre-goers.

Many stage managers and master actors were able to transmit their
theories, derived from experience, to their pupils. It is likely that Bouci-
cault5 always a master of stage effect, was a pragmatic and practical
teacher of acting. George Vandenhoff was probably another teacher of
the same kind. His book on elocution, in considering such matters as
articulation, pause, inflection, emphasis, and intonation, is full of defi-
nite examples.17 F. F. Macka/s textbook on acting of a later period is
replete with exact advice about specific roles and the problems inherent
in the acting and presentation of certain plays.18 Mackay insists, too,
on the thorough control of emotions and passions. There was nothing
esoteric about the theories of these actor-teachers; communication of
the playwright's intentions in understandable terms was their primary
aim. Their teaching methods, however, fell into disfavor; perhaps imi-
tation became the principal means of instruction. It is certain that when
reasons for action are forgotten, when problem solving is left out of the
teaching process, sound and fury signifying nothing are the eventual
result. Whatever the reason, the traditional techniques of training for
the stage came to be regarded as stilted and artificial.

Some teachers became dissatisfied with the established methods.
James Rush was one of the first who attempted to develop a new sys-
tem of instruction in voice and elocution. He is the principal exemplar
of a second group, the exponents of a "scientific" method. He studied
the physical aspects of speech, and sought to establish sound, scientific
bases for instruction. Virgil A. Anderson has recently pointed out Rush's
importance as a teacher, particularly of voice:

Speech teachers in general and voice scientists in particular owe more to
Rush than is usually acknowledged, because he not only pioneered in apply-
ing the scientific method to the study of voice and speech production but also
offered a sound approach and keen observations to demonstrate that the
expressive action of the voice can be described, if not explained, in relatively
precise, objective terminology. In a day when teaching was done largely by
precept, "hunch," and imitation, Rush did much to establish speech and voice
training upon a firm basis.19

As Anderson notes further, Rush had a great influence upon a number
of well-known and influential teachers.

James E. Murdoch, famous actor-teacher, was an adherent to the
theories of Rush, and no doubt was more responsible than any other
individual for introducing them into the teaching of acting. Other
influences on Murdoch perhaps modified his use of Rush's doctrines.
He was a pupil of the elocutionist and teacher, Lemuel White, known
for his emphasis on emphasis, lessons in which were apparently never

PROFESSIONAL THEATRE SCHOOLS 635

forgotten by his onetime student, Edwin Forrest. Murdoch was a suc-
cessful stage performer. As an elocutionist and reader, he entertained
the troops during the Civil War, some eighty years before Charles
Laughton provided the same kind of one-man entertainment for the
G.I/s of World War II. The success of modern readers like Laughton
and Emlyn Williams who browse in the long green pastures of the plat-
form derives from a rediscovery of an old and honorable branch of the
actor's art. Murdoch was also a distinguished leading man on the stage;
his practice could not have been too much different from that of his con-
temporaries. The Rush-Murdoch "scientific" school, however, met the
fate which seems to be in store for most systems, and itself came to be
regarded as mechanical and "unnatural."

Those teachers who objected to the so-called scientific method
adopted a considerably different point of view. To quote Anderson
again:

These individuals were in the vanguard of the inspirational or "think-the-
thought" school of elocution. The contention of this school was that if the
voice is only left free, it will respond naturally to the inner dictates of thought
and feeling. The main concern was to free the voice, as a part of total bodily
expression, as a medium for an outward manifestation of inward activity.
Little formal voice training was believed necessary.20

The influence of this theory on elocution and stage training from 1900
to 1925, and today for that matter, seems beyond question.

A belief in man's possession of inherent qualities which, by proper
training, can be freed for the purpose of full expression was crucial to
this group of teachers of acting and allied forms of communication.
Most important among them were the founders of the three Boston
schools— Curry, Emerson, and Powers. Although their theories, which
they expressed in many books, articles, and lectures, were not identical,
many beliefs in common can be observed.

It was probably no accident that Boston was the center of this school
of expressional philosophy and practice. Faith in man's inner power
was congenial to New England transcendentalists. Monroe, teacher of
the founders of the Boston schools, was regarded as a transcendenta-
list. The religious bent, always present and apparent in elocution teach-
ing, was being intensified by the deep interest in the "revelations" of
Swedenborg; Monroe was also interested in Swedenborgianism. The
mysticism inherent in much of Delsarte's teaching was not difficult for
the Boston teachers to accept, although many aspects of his "system"
were rejected. Man was regarded as possessed of great, God-given
powers. The freeing of these powers by training was to be the task of
teachers of expression.

636 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATKE

One of the best known of S. S. Curry's many books was Mind and
Voice, but he appeared to have been more interested in mind than
voice. Some of Curry's statements in another book may be of interest
here:

As the leaf manifests the life at the root of the tree; as the bobolink's song
is the outflow of a full heart; so all expression obeys the same law; it comes
FROM WITHIN OUTWARD, from the centre to the surface, from a hidden
source to outward manifestation. However deep the life, it reveals itself by
natural signs.

Expression in man is governed by the same law. Every action of face or
hand, every modulation of voice, is simply an outward effect of an inward
condition. Any motion that is otherwise is not expression.21

Curry goes on to criticize any manipulation from without, any imitation.
Such methods he regards as artificial and mechanical. The voice and
body, through misuse and bad habit, are unable to respond freely to
the inner impulse. It is the function of training, he asserts, to create
conditions for natural expression. Exercises, he says, may be technical
or psychic. Both are needed, but the psychic (or specific practice of
that mental action which tends to cause the right expressive action) is
safer for individual or class use. Most important to Curry were mind
and spirit, particularly mind; but technical systems of training must be
devised for mind to function properly. He gave some credit to other
systems of training, but in general rejected them, including the Del-
sartian, as invalid. His own methods of training became highly detailed
and, to the unitiated, seem complex.

Charles Wesley Emerson, too, believed in the mental and spiritual
basis of expression. He maintained that man is capable of self-improve-
ment, that such self -improvement must start from within. Voice and
body express the soul, he held; but he too developed complicated
theories of training and technical drills and exercises. He used also
some body training based on Delsarte. Mechanical perfection, however,
was not the aim, but always the mental and spiritual.

Leland Powers seems to have been a mystic and a transcendentalist;
he strongly believed in man's possession of all needful power and
knowledge. To evoke man's power should be the principal task of the
teacher of expression. He shared the view that voice training was a
matter of "freeing," and developed a set of principles and training
methods for the purpose. Powers accepted the "trinities'* of Delsarte,
and many of Delsarte's ideas and methods. He acknowledged this, but
noted changes in his own use of them.

The followers of Delsarte might be regarded as another group which
had great influence during much of the period from 1900 to 1925. Steele
MacKaye, near-genius in all aspects of theatre practice, became an

PKOFESSIONAL THEATRE SCHOOLS 637

enthusiastic adherent of the "natural acting" theories of Frangois Del-
sarte, with whom he had studied in Paris. Delsarte, too, believed in the
actor's inner powers, and in the trinity of man as mental, physical, and
spiritual. His theory of "trinity" led him to develop an intricate system
of training and exercises. His theory of the control of muscles to create
emotional states was later carried to the point of excess and consequent
ridicule. These principles and practices of Delsarte, MacKaye promoted
in the United States with persuasive zeal. Though already being dis-
credited, Delsarte's ideas were still strongly held by many teachers of
acting during the 1900-1925 period.

The last clearly identifiable class of teachers of acting consists of
those who followed the example of the Moscow Art Theatre and the
principles enunciated by Constantin Stanislavsky. These theories were
derived from long practice and were apparently intended for the use
of a mature, disciplined company, but were soon ardently and hope-
fully studied by many amateurs and some professionals in America.
Stanislavsky's idea of emotional recall and his emphasis on mood and
ensemble playing seemed fresh and original. Stanislavsky and his col-
leagues were certainly fine, expert actors who knew their craft and art,
both of which they sought to enrich. The high reputation of the actors,
directors and writers associated with the Moscow Art Theatre gave
ready authority to the adherents of the so-called Stanislavsky "method"
of acting. The influence of the Moscow Art Theatre was not important
until the end of our period.

From the beginning of the quarter-century, performances of plays
were a part of the program of the professional schools, although prob-
ably to exhibit the results of actor training. But the center of interest
began to shift away from the actor. As the theories of Craig and Appia
became known, there was an increasing concern with the production
aspects of theatre. Art theatres, amateur drama groups, little maga-
zines for advanced thinkers encouraged the "movement." Reinhardt's
spectacles needed space and machinery, not skilled performers. Com-
munity historical pageants, popularized by Percy MacKaye, needed
livestock and live Indians, not trained actors. The director was coming
to be regarded as the major interpreter of the dramatist. The appear-
ance of a new group of interesting and important playwrights after
World War I operated still further to turn interest away from the actor.
More and more, theatrical criticism ignored, or nearly ignored the
actor. All the emphasis on "naturalness" of script and production mis-
takenly led to inadequacy of training for the individual. The old actor
practiced more and rehearsed less than his modern counterpart. At
present, the actor is likely to practice little, and rehearse to the point
of exhaustion. But from the standpoint of the actor-artist and his teach-

638 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

ers, good ensemble is not enough. The individual actor still needs
training.

The professional schools probably did not turn as far away from the
problems of the actor as did amateur organizations. They still worked
with individuals who paid the bills, and who wanted to develop the
skills to get and hold professional jobs. And it is unlikely that any such
school altogether neglected the individual for the group. The curricula
and organization of the schools, however, do reflect the changing
theatrical world.

Franklin H. Sargent, in the 1899 article about the American Academy
of Dramatic Art, wrote: "The School followed plans suggested by the
Paris Conservatoire, modified by methods of German schools, and to a
lesser extent, the Italian and English ways of stage education." 22 Else-
where, Sargent indicated his interest in Delsarte, and Steele MacKaye
was associated with the Academy in its formative years. We know, too,
that Sargent was a student of Monroe in Boston. These observations
are not meant to imply that Sargent did not know what he was doing;
but they do suggest that he was ready to use theories and methods from
many sources. This pragmatic approach may have been characteristic
of the teaching of theatre in the first quarter of the twentieth century.
It has been shown that some schools followed the old "professional"
approach, that others looked to Delsarte for inspiration, that the schools
of "expression" continued to adhere to the principal theories of their
founders, that the influence of the Moscow Art Theatre became notice-
able at the end of the period.

To discover what specific methods teachers actually used in the
classroom or rehearsal hall has not been possible on the basis of the
available material. There was formal instruction, individual and group,
in separate subjects. Play rehearsals and completed productions were
a part of training during our entire period, though it has been noted
that the "work-shop" plan increased in use. Practical experience was
stressed from the first. More information would be needed, however,
to make more than general declarations regarding the translation of
theory into teaching method and technique.

Several dichotomies run through the theatre education conducted by
the professional schools. Leaders and teachers of many schools believe
in the innate, "natural" powers of the individual; they develop system-
atic methods of developing such powers. They believe in personality
development and also in technical proficiency. The schools have alleged
professional aims; they also assert that they can serve general educa-
tional purposes. They believe in art; they know that they are in busi-
ness. Reconciliation of these discrete purposes is, of course, not impos-
sible. It may not be impertinent to remark also, that these recurring

PROFESSIONAL THEATRE SCHOOLS 639

problems are not peculiar to professional schools of acting and theatre.
Each school and teacher has to face some of them, and solve them at
least well enough to meet proper standards of integrity.

In considering schools which purport to give training for professional
work, it is pertinent to ask what happened to their graduates. Re-
sponses to this inquiry show considerable variation. A former officer
of one reputable school no longer in operation replied that few stu-
dents made the jump from "art to commerce"; another administrator
answered that about a third of the students went into professional
work, that another third became teachers and that the fate, however
happy, of the rest was unknown; another observed that all but a
tenth of its graduates went into some form of theatre activity. The
visitor to any professional school will be readily provided with long
lists of former students who have been or are employed in the the-
atrical profession. Even though such lists are prepared for publicity
purposes, there is no reason to doubt their accuracy; many of the
names mentioned are well known to American theatre-goers. Others,
though not in lights, no doubt represent competent persons making a
living in the theatre. There is always the implication that "you, too,
can succeed"; the schools are proud of their distinguished graduates;
their officials and teachers believe, of course, that their training has
been helpful. They seek professional placement for their pupils. To
make any allegation about a possible cause-and-effect relationship
between the training in the schools and later professional employment
would require long and controlled study, even if all data were avail-
able. In this sampling, no conclusions can be reached and no invidious
comparisons made. But the evidence is impressive enough to provide
support for the stated professional aims of the several schools. There
seems to be little doubt that their graduates have made a definite
impact on the American theatre of yesterday and today.

What of the professional schools today? Their present aims are still
professional, although they offer many non-vocational courses. Cur-
ricula have been modified to suit new developments in the theatre
business; courses in radio, television, and motion picture have largely
supplanted those in vaudeville and platform reading. Some profes-
sional schools have become degree-granting colleges. Others which
have not taken this step regard their offerings as capable of providing
a satisfactory personal and professional education. Some hold firmly
to the ideals and principles of their founders; others shift with the
changing breezes of theatrical theory. The worst of them will be con-

640 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

demned, as in the past, for all the sins of opportunism; the best of
them will continue to hold a respected and respectable place in edu-
cation and theatre.

Notes

1. Franklin H. Sargent, "Stage Training," Dramatic Studies, II (April, 1899),
3-7.

2. Lester Wallack, Memories of Fifty Years (New York, 1889).

3. The Stage Reminiscences of Mrs Gilbert (New York, 1901).

4. Frederick Warde, Fifty Years of Make Believe (New York, 1920).

5. Constance Morris, "Dion Boucicault's School of Acting," Green Book, VI
(August, 1911), 401-407.

6. American Academy of Dramatic Arts Bulletin (1900).

7. Alvienne School Bulletin (1952).

8. Alvienne School Bulletin, n.d.

9. Dauphin School Bulletin (1952).

10. Edythe May Renshaw, "Three Schools of Speech," unpublished Ph.D. dis-
sertation, Columbia Teachers College, 1950. In this excellent study of the three
schools mentioned, the theories and methods of each are described and compared.

11. Letter from Haven W. Powers, March 2, 1953.

12. Letter from Miss Nellie Cornish, March 2, 1953.

13. Doris Fox Bernardete, "The Neighborhood Playhouse in Grand Street,"
unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1949.

14. Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theatre Bulletin (1952).

15. Letter from Elizabeth Kimberly, March 17, 1953.

16. Thomas Wood Stevens, "A School of the Theatre Arts," Drama, IV (No-
vember, 1914), 635.

17. George Vandenhoff, The Art of Elocution (London, 1862).

18. F. F. Mackay, The Art of Acting (New York, 1913).

19. Virgil A. Anderson, "A Modern View of Voice and Diction," QJS, XXXIX
(February, 1953), 27.

20. Ibid.

21. Foundations of Expression (Boston, 1920), p. 10.

22. Sargent, op. cit., p. 5.

AO National Theatre Organizations
and Theatre Education

WILLIAM P. HALSTEAD
CLARA BEHRINGER

Only in the United States and only during the twentieth century
have educators accepted theatre training as subject matter for the
academic curriculum. True, schools had officially produced plays
earlier, but they had employed such production chiefly as a device
for teaching other subjects— the Greek and Latin languages, the Bible
diction, literature. It follows naturally, then, that national organiza-
tions concerned with the pedagogy of theatre should first appear in
this century and in America.

The succession of these organizations reflects the growth and change
in theatre activity itself. In the early decades of the century, play
production was extracurricular in most colleges and secondary
schools; hence, the first national academic organizations exclusively
concerned with theatre were honorary fraternities designed to give
recognition to the participants in extracurricular productions.

Concurrently, theatre was creeping into the curriculum through the
teaching of drama and "speech" in the English departments. Accord-
ingly, the first educational association to take an interest in the cur-
ricular study of drama and in extracurricular activity in theatre was the
National Council of Teachers of English.1 Just as theatre training lefl
the English departments along with speech training, so teachers oi
theatre became members of the National Association of Teachers oJ
Speech when it organized in 1914 as a splinter group of the Englisr
association.2 However, since neither of these organizations evidenced
more than perfunctory interest in the teaching of theatre, they served
only as transitional agencies; therefore, this chapter will discuss then:
only incidentally in relation to the associations subsequently organized

For a number of years, NCTE and NATS satisfied the needs oi
teachers of theatre. However, as outstanding pioneers arose in th<=

641

642 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

educational and community theatre, they led their groups to a level
of serious endeavor and technical excellence-a level which left the-
atre leaders unsatisfied with NATS Convention sections planned for
the beginners and the untrained. They felt the need for smaller
conferences with their peers; they achieved that objective in 1931 with
the formation of the National Theatre Conference.

As increasing numbers of high schools and colleges admitted theatre
work to the curriculum, more and more individuals were prepared for
co-operative effort on a high level. NTC did not meet this need and
opportunity by expanding its membership; NATS failed to recognize
adequately the growth of this phase of speech work. Therefore the
American Educational Theatre Association appeared in 1936 as an
organization for co-operative effort in raising the standards of educa-
tional theatre and its status in the curriculum. Within the short lite ot
AETA curricular theatre has expanded tremendously, and a new
emphasis on theatre research has appeared. The services of AETA
reflect these trends. .

Before the establishment of NTC and AETA, however, specialized
groups had felt the need for sharing ideas and experiences not satis-
fied by the general conventions and publications of the NATS. The
first association of Negro colleges emerged in 1930 to administer festi-
vals and exchanges of plays. Similar specialized needs resulted in the
organization of the Catholic Theatre Conference in 1937.

Space limits this discussion to organizations whose origins or pres-
ent activities are primarily linked with schools. However, not even the
most casual student of education would maintain that dissemination
of information and stimulation of appreciation lie wholly within the
province of educational institutions. Consequently, although their
histories cannot be detailed, note must be taken here of three organi-
zations and a magazine which performed important educational
functions as a part of their concern with the American theatre as a
whole. These include the Drama League of America, the American
National Theatre and Academy, the Theatre Library Association, and
the Theatre Arts magazine.

The Drama League was formed in 1910 as an association of theatre-
goers interested primarily in raising the standards of professional pro-
ductions, and only secondarily in encouraging productions by nonpro-
fessionals. As noncommercial productions increased in number and
improved in quality and as the professional road and stock companies
dwindled, the Drama League expanded its interest in the amateur
theatre.

Similarly, when ANTA was chartered by the Congress in 1935 with
the intention of operating one or more professional repertory theatres,

NATIONAL THEATRE ORGANIZATIONS 643

the founders had no thought of the noncommercial theatre. But when
ANTA finally became active in 1946, its interest included all types of
theatre activity.

Organized in 1937, the TLA reflects the new emphasis on theatre
research. Formed to encourage the establishment and growth of the-
atre collections in libraries and museums, TLA does not limit mem-
bership to college libraries, although a large proportion of the mem-
bership derives from collegiate institutions.

Throughout most of the period, Theatre Arts magazine, edited
by Edith J. R. Isaacs and later Rosamond Gilder, reflected the
changing attitude toward noncommercial theatre and gave important
guidance and stimulation to the noncommercial as well as the com-
mercial theatre.

This chapter provides a brief history of educational theatre organi-
zations. Since this volume deals chiefly with the history of speech
education only until about 1925? the emphasis is placed. upon the
initiation and formative years of each organization; the later develop-
ment is sketched briefly except when significant changes took place.
The organizations are discussed in the chronological order of their
founding. When several organizations are treated together, the earliest
founding date among the organizations determines the group's position
in the chronology.

National Honor Fraternities and Societies

Of the national organizations interested exclusively in theatre, the
first to take root in academic life were the national dramatic honor
fraternities. The idea of honoring students for achievement in theat-
rical activity originated in the colleges, then spread to the high schools
and junior colleges. Several organizations grew up, and although they
differed in some ways, they showed marked similarities in scope, pur-
pose, operation, and educational achievement.

The college honoraries emerged from two types of activity. Some
sprang from college play producing units, either temporary or perma-
nent; 3 others from the earlier professional societies and honorary
fraternities of the several academic fields.4

Some of the professional and honorary fraternities specifically in-
cluded dramatics as one of their areas of recognition. Zeta Phi Eta, a
professional fraternity for women founded in 1893, encompassed both
speech and drama, as did Phi Eta Sigma, begun in 1901 and later
combined with Zeta Phi Eta.5 Phi Alpha Tau? an honorary for public
speakers and actors, followed in 1902,6 and Phi Beta, a professional
fraternity for women in music and drama, appeared in 1912. 7 Such

644 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

organizations have doubtless made contributions to drama educa-
tion. Nevertheless, since they were not concerned exclusively with
drama, they do not fall within the compass of this study.

Three organizations comprise the college-level group of honoraries
concerned exclusively with the theatre field: National Collegiate
Players, Theta Alpha Phi, and Alpha Psi Omega.

The first of these, NCP, resulted from a combination of Associated
University Players and Pi Epsilon Delta, in 1922. Associated Univer-
sity Players originated in 1913 when Mask and Bauble, a producing
unit at the University of Illinois, promulgated the idea of a national
organization of university dramatic clubs. AUP established chapters
at the Universities of Ohio, Washington, and Oregon.8

Pi Epsilon Delta, the other component of NCP, began operating in a
capacity similar to AUP at the University of Wisconsin, June 8, 1919.
The founding students organized the fraternity because they felt the
need for recognizing distinction among upperclassmen in the dramatics
area.9 Roy E. Holcombe served as the first president; Lawrence W.
Murphy, as the first vice-president. Murphy composed the ritual and
Frances Ellen Tucker designed the key. At the invitation of the charter
members,10 faculty members joined PED; ai one of these, Gertrude
Johnson, in the following years devoted so much time and effort to the
organization that it became identified with her. Members carried on
three types of activity designed to bring petitioners to the organiza-
tion: campus visitations, initiation of visiting students and faculty
during summer sessions at Wisconsin, and colonization—institution of
chapters on different campuses by Wisconsin students who transferred
to them. These activities quickly established chapters at Washington
University (St. Louis), University of Minnesota, and Northwestern.12

When AUP and PED merged in 1922 they chose a non-Greek name
—National Collegiate Players— and designated chapters by numbers
rather than by Greek letters, but they accepted PED's objectives.13

These objectives, stated as purposes in the NCP Constitution, in-
cluded representing the college and university in national movements
for the betterment and welfare of drama and theatre in the United
States, and raising the standards of college and university theatres by
recognizing the most worthy individual and group efforts in the crea-
tive arts of the theatre.14

How did the organization go about achieving these ends, and to
what extent was its activity beneficial educationally? NCP limited
membership to juniors and seniors and established a "B" average as a
requirement, thus furnishing incentive for better scholastic work.
Through a qualifying point system it provided motivation for in-
creased and higher quality participation.15 In 1924 NCP began publi-

NATIONAL THEATRE ORGANIZATIONS 645

cation of Players Magazine, an organ of collegiate theatre that has
progressed from four to eight issues annually and has achieved inter-
national circulation.16 Through it members are provided with the
latest information on all phases of theatrical activity and with a
medium for exchange of ideas with other NCP units.

Trailing the founding of AUP by six years and that of FED by six
months, Theta Alpha Phi was organized at a meeting of the National
Association of Teachers of Speech held in Chicago in December,
1919. 17 John R. Pelsma of Oklahoma A. and M. College was active in
the founding.18 Finding it difficult to induce students to accept bit
roles and to participate in technical work, Pelsma conceived TAP to
motivate a greater interest in all theatre activities.19 At the organiza-
tional meeting, Charles Newcomb of Ohio Wesleyan University
became the first national president.20 Pelsma, who was elected
secretary-treasurer, designed the pin and wrote the ritual.21 Chapters
instituted in 1919 include Oklahoma A. and M. and Ripon Colleges
and Ohio Wesleyan, Louisiana, John B. Stetson, and Bucknell Uni-
versities.22

According to the constitution, the purposes of TAP are "to increase
interest, stimulate creativeness, and foster artistic achievement in all
of the allied arts and crafts of the theatre.23

The organization employed the following means to implement
these purposes. It restricted membership to students of the sophomore,
junior, and senior classes who fulfilled participation requirements in
the acting, directing, writing, business or technical aspects of public
production.24 To facilitate the exchange of information, TAP began
publication of The Cue, a quarterly magazine, in 1921 under the
editorship of Pelsma.25 The organization has sponsored annual conven-
tions at which specialists in theatre lecture and meet with students for
discussion of problems of the theatre worker.26

The youngest and largest of the three college dramatic honoraries is
Alpha Psi Omega, founded August 12, 1925, at Fairmont State College,
Fairmont, West Virginia. Desiring to establish an honor society for its
theatre workers, the Masquers, Fairmont's dramatic club, applied to
NCP and TAP for affiliation; neither application was accepted. NCP
seemed to limit its roll to the major universities; TAP appeared to
prefer liberal arts colleges as members; Fairmont was a teachers
college.27 The Masquers, under the guidance of Paul F. Opp, then set
up Alpha Psi Omega as the local honorary. Interest among neighboring
colleges called almost immediately for formation of a national organi-
zation.28 Opp and E. Turner Stump of Marshall College composed the
first drafts of constitution and ritual. They were the first national
officers of the organization and continued as officers as late as 1952.29

646 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

In addition to Fairmont and Marshall, Washington and Lee and Acadia
(Canada) established chapters during the founding year.30

The stated purposes of APO are to encourage student participation
in college dramatics and to reward serious effort.31

Have these purposes elicited the same educational achievements
cited for the other two collegiate dramatic fraternities? Like the
others, APO has employed a publication, in this case The Playbill, to
furnish information and the inspiration for intercollegiate contacts.
Like them, it has established a qualifying system; however, this system
requires that points be earned in technical fields as well as in acting,
thus attempting to insure a rounded theatre experience. APO has
attempted to raise the level of production among its member schools
by empowering the national office to act as a service organization-
performing such tasks as helping with the royalty problem and se-
curing discounts on stage equipment and supplies.32

In the Spring of 1929, four years after the founding of APO, the
National Thespian Society, an honorary organization of high-school
students, appeared. The idea originated with Earl W. Blank, then a
teacher in Natrona County High School at Casper, Wyoming. Observ-
ing the National Forensic League in operation, Blank felt that a similar
national association of dramatic groups could serve the educational
theatre. Blank wrote Opp of APO to inquire as to the feasibility of the
plan,33 with the result that the national officers of APO— Opp, Stump,
and Russell Speiers of Colgate—voted a gift of five hundred dollars
from APO to NTS to start its work.34 The Casper school became
Troupe No. 1, and Blank served as national president for thirteen
years. Because the clerical work was done at Fairmont State College,
that school was designated the place of founding.35

NTS set out to accomplish two general aims: to establish and ad-
vance standards of excellence in all phases of dramatic arts, and to
create an active and intelligent interest in dramatic arts among boys
and girls in the high schools.36

To implement these aims, NTS, like the college groups, has pub-
lished a magazine to acquaint directors and students with the activity
in other high schools and to disseminate information on all aspects of
production. Begun as an annual, The High School Thespian 37 evolved
into Dramatics, a magazine of eight issues a year, which attained a
circulation of over twenty thousand by 1950. ss Coast-to-coast hookups
over a national broadcasting chain also have stimulated interest.39 The
organization has sponsored four National Dramatics Arts Conferences
at Indiana University; one thousand students and teachers attended
the 1952 sessions.40 To further encourage participation and raise
standards, NTS has sought to aid its chapters financially, through

NATIONAL THEATRE ORGANIZATIONS 647

royalty reductions,41 a library loan service, discounts on stage equip-
ment, and complimentary publications,42 and through a placement
service for faculty sponsors.

The two dramatic honoraries on the junior-college level arose as a
result of the fact that the constitutions of the college fraternities made
no provision for chapters in the two-year schools, which were repeat-
edly petitioning for admission.43 Generally speaking, they resemble
in form and function the senior honoraries from which they sprang.

The older of the junior college fraternities, Delta Psi Omega, began
in 1929. Mrs. Irene Childrey Painton, director of dramatics at
Modesto, California, Junior College, presented the idea and plan for
the organization to Opp of APO. Opp designed the badge and drew
up the constitution for the junior fraternity. DPO also admits to mem-
bership unaccredited four-year colleges that have equivalent programs
of production.44

It was twenty years later, in 1949, when the second of the junior-
college groups, Junior Collegiate Players, was established. A commit-
tee from NCP, headed by Earl Seigfred of Ohio University, worked out
the details of founding.45 The general scholastic average required for
membership in JCP is the minimum required for participation in
extracurricular activities in the given school.46

In summary, the dramatic honor societies share a common aim-
recognition of demonstrated ability in the theatre arts— and have, by
working toward that aim, been of benefit to education by making
thousands of students theatre conscious 47 and by motivating higher-
quality participation in dramatic activity. Beyond these points of
agreement, the paths diverge markedly, with some of the societies
assuming the capacity of service organizations to their member groups.
These services, too, contribute to the general cause of education in the
theatre area.

Negro Dramatic Associations

As shown in the preceding section, the early dramatic honor socie-
ties and fraternities originated with students and emphasized student
membership, although faculty members were, of necessity, largely re-
sponsible for continuation of the fraternities' programs. The Negro
educational theatre associations, in contrast, were faculty-inspired, but
as they developed, they included students as an integral part of the
groups.

To understand the struggle for existence and the educational con-
tributions of the Negro organizations, it is necessary to examine briefly
the place of theatre activity in the Negro colleges. In these colleges

648 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

dramatics began slowly,4 s but after World War I, two developments
outside the educational picture furnished impetus to the school the-
atre. First, Negro little theatre groups in larger cities gained recogni-
tion.49 Second, prominent dramatists turned out widely acclaimed and
commercially successful plays which presented Negro life and prob-
lems sympathetically.50 During the twenties and thirties, dramatic
organizations mushroomed in colleges for Negroes.51 These dramatic
clubs prepared the way for the gradual inclusion of theatre courses in
the curriculum.

The efforts of one man, S. Randolph Edmonds, provided the stimu-
lus for the organization of the Negro dramatic associations. It is note-
worthy that he organized the first association a year before the
National Theatre Conference was established.

On March 7, 1930, representatives from five colleges—Howard
University, Hampton Institute, Morgan State, Virginia Union, and
Virginia State Colleges— met on the Morgan campus at the invitation
of Edmonds. These schools constituted the charter membership of the
Negro Inter-Collegiate Dramatic Association. (The name was changed
to Inter-Collegiate Dramatic Association in 1947.) Delegates elected
Edmonds to the presidency, an office he retained for five years.52
Several college organizations applied for membership in the new
association each year, but growth was slow. NIDA required that the
member groups exchange plays, and distance between schools often
prevented such exchange. After seven years the membership list in-
cluded only ten schools.53 NIDA held annual conferences until World
War II caused suspension of the meetings. President J. Newton Hill
of Lincoln University and Secretary Felicia Anderson of Virginia
State worked to keep the organization alive, and in 1946 regular
meetings -were resumed with one held at Bennett College.54

Having removed to Dillard University at New Orleans, Edmonds
founded the Southern Association of Dramatic and Speech Arts for
schools of the southern area. Nineteen colleges and one community
theatre responded to Edmonds' call for a meeting at Dillard, February
26-27, 1936.55

Permanent organization was not attempted until the 1937 meeting
at Florida A. and M. College, The charter member list included:
Alabama State, Alcorn, Lane, LeMoyne, Morehouse, Morris Brown,
Prairie View, Shorter, Spelman, Talladega, Tougaloo, Wiley, and
Winston Salem State Teachers Colleges; Atlanta, Dillard, and Fisk
Universities; and Tuskegee Institute.56 Edmonds was elected presi-
dent57

The next year the organization divided into three units geograph-

NATIONAL THEATRE ORGANIZATIONS 649

ically— southwestern, south central, and southeastern58— to promote
more frequent and closer contacts among members.59

In 1941, 137 delegates gathered for the yearly meeting, but by 1942
the pall of the war years settled over the organization. Edmonds was
serving with the U. S. Army; Thomas E. Poag, a former student of
Edmonds, became president. From Cornell University, where he was
studying for a doctorate, Poag issued news letters, which held the
membership together until the group could meet at his own school,
Tennessee A. and I. State College, April 10-12, 1946.60

The SADSA Encore, official publication of the association, first
appeared in 1948 under the editorship of Lillian Voorhees.61

SADSA changed its name to National Association of Dramatic and
Speech Arts on May 5, 1951, at Alabama State College. The change
was made because both the membership and program had become
national in scope, and because a majority of the members wished to
remain an affiliate of the American Educational Theatre Association
with representation on its Advisory Council62 NADS A reached its
maturity 'and national status under the leadership of Poag, who served
as its president for nine years ( 1942- 1951 ),63 and of Voorhees who
was executive secretary of the organization for ten years ( 1937-1942;
1947-1952).64

Some members of the two Negro associations have suggested a
merger of the groups. A committee from SADSA appointed in 1949 to
investigate the suggestion recommended co-operation and interchange
of materials between the organizations but opposed the merger. The
committee believed that neither group yet desired affiliation and that
each organization has a clear geographical function.65 Further, SADSA
planned to work itself out of existence as the Negro becomes integrated
into American life.66 A merger was held to be inimical to that goal.67

Although they remain separate organizations, the two associations
share some goals. The need for a system of play exchanges and of
contact among directors, the desire to raise the standards of produc-
tion, and the hope of hastening the inclusion of theatre courses in
curricula, motivated their formation.68 These objectives, however,
were but the immediate and concrete expression of a broader vision
and aim. Edmonds saw that almost every major area of study in the
schools had its professional organization; specifically he noted that
athletics had not attained its prominence through isolated intermural
programs. Logically it followed that an intercollegiate association
might stimulate interest in theatre. Further, Edmonds noted that as a
result of shifting interest and personnel, few of the many community
theatres which sprang up from time to time managed to achieve

650 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

permanence. The stability and hardiness of college educational pro-
grams suggested that in this field might He the hope of a continuing

Negro theatre.69

The two organizations, working separately but co-operatively, have
contributed in large measure to the welfare of educational theatre in
Negro colleges. They stimulated activity which resulted in markedly
increased production,70 provided for interchange of ideas among
directors, and supplied laboratory experience that resulted in improve-
ment of standards.71

IDA and NADSA have employed a variety of methods to achieve
these ends, first trying exchange of plays among the member colleges.
Even during World War II colleges located sufficiently near each
other managed an occasional exchange,72 At the early annual confer-
ences, play tournaments served as teaching devices, with experienced
theatre persons such as Frederick Koch, Alexander Dean, and Edith
J. R, Isaacs judging the entries; 7S by 1938 the tournaments gave way
to the festival plan.74 Conference lectures and forums aimed at in-
forming and stimulating the members. The organization sponsored
playwriting contests, favoring themes centering around Negro life.
Authors retained the rights to their plays, but members of the associa-
tion could produce them royalty free.75

Throughout these activities, the associations emphasized student
participation. Speaking for NADSA, Voorhees claims that student
membership has proved an excellent training ground for leaders in the
field.76 Students served to bring new life into the organization, as,
passing from student to faculty capacities, they have taken their places
with their former teachers to help achieve the goals of the Negro edu-
cational theatre organizations.

National Theatre Conference

Formally organized in 1931, one year after the Negro Inter-Col-
legiate Dramatic Association, the National Theatre Conference an-
swered a need felt by many active workers for at least a decade before
its founding. Its history reveals that NTC brought together some
theatre practitioners of experience whose co-operative efforts benefited
education in theatre.

Many educational and community theatre workers recognized the
need for a "meeting of minds" during the twenties. In 1925 Walter
Prichard Eaton called for "some central Little Theatre Organiza-
tion."77 About the same time an anonymous little theatre director
cried in Theatre Arts, 'We are working practically in isolation." 7S
Edith J. R. Isaacs in 1932 stated that "for ten years, the idea of some

NATIONAL THEATRE ORGANIZATIONS 651

sort of union or federation of little theatres . . . has been in the air." 79

The annual conventions of the National Association of Teachers of
Speech and of the National Council of Teachers of English permitted
some interchange of ideas, though these organizations limited their
sections devoted to theatre and often designed them for the beginning
teachers rather than for the active, experienced leaders,80 Informal
state, regional, and national conferences showed the same tendencies.81

B. Iden Payne and Chester Wallace called a "Conference on the
Drama in American Universities and Little Theatres" at Carnegie
Institute of Technology on November 27-28, 1925.82 The invitations
said, "The purpose of the conference is to review the situation" of the
"regenerative forces at work in the American theatre ... in the Little
and Community Theatres and dramatic activities of the universities
and colleges ... to obtain a just estimate of what has so far been
accomplished, and, finally, to endeavor to give cohesion to the move-
ment." Payne, Otto Kahn, Brock Pemberton, Otis Skinner, Samuel H.
Church, Richard Boleslavsky, George Pierce Baker, Thomas Wood
Stevens, Edward C. Mabie, S. Marion Tucker, Kenneth Macgowan,
and Frederic McConnell spoke, and Arthur Hopkins attended as a
spectator.83 McConnell refers to this as "the first meeting of NTC and
its inception."84 Though it is not legally accurate, this is true in
spirit because there was continuity of purpose from this conference to
the eventual formal organization.

Fifteen months later, three hundred persons attended a "second
annual conference of representatives of the rionprofessional theatres"
called by Baker at Yale, February 11-12, 1927.85

The next year Macgowan visited the noncommercial theatres of the
country under a grant from the Carnegie Corporation to the American
Association for Adult Education, and reported his observations in
Footlights Across America. In this book86 and in an article in Theatre
Arts,87 Macgowan stressed the need for an organization to give struc-
ture to the theatre of the nation. Eaton had earlier stated the need for
help on royalties; Macgowan, in addition, recommended that the or-
ganization serve the theatre through giving technical and business
advice, awarding scholarships, holding conferences, publishing a
yearbook, and conducting an employment register.

Macgowan continued to agitate for a "National Theatre Council" 8S
and in 1931 secured another grant of twenty-five hundred dollars from
the Carnegie Corporation through AAAE to pay all expenses for
thirty leaders of community and university theatres to meet and find a
basis for a national federation.89

At the ensuing three-day conference at Northwestern University in
June 1931, the delegates "decided that such a federation was essential

652 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATKE

to the development of a national theatre in America, and to the prog-
ress of the educational theatre"; and in spite of marked differences
they finally appointed a committee of fifteen to serve as a Council for
an organization to which they gave the name National Theatre Con-
ference.90 At subsequent meetings at Iowa City and New York, the
Council drafted a constitution and elected as officers: Baker, presi-
dent; Gilmor Brown, first vice-president; Mabie, second vice-president;
and Isaacs, secretary-treasurer. These officers continued until the
death of Baker, January 6, 1935, when Brown became president, Mabie,
first vice-president, and Allardyce Nicoll, second vice-president.91

The early promotion literature described NTC as "a co-operative
membership organization to serve collectively the interests of the
American theatre." 92 Theatre Arts described it a little more specifi-
cally:

The National Theatre Conference hopes to remain, as its name implies, a
not-too-heady and not-too-definite organization, but rather a medium for the
exchange of ideas and of collective service between the leading organized
theatres of all kinds throughout the country; a gesture in the direction of
wiping out that sense of distance and aloneness which adds so much to the
difficulty of the American director or playwright who works far away from
New York.93

NTC initially offered two types of membership.94 The principal
executive of a community or college theatre producing three or more
full-length plays during a year could be an active member. Any junior
college, high school, club, organization, or individual interested in
NTC's purposes could be an associate member, receiving more limited
services.95 In 1934 the organization added library memberships.96

The budget submitted to the AAAE for 1932-1933 estimated that
five thousand dollars would be received in dues, on the basis of one
hundred active and two hundred fifty associate memberships.97 But at
the end of the year there were only thirty-three of each category,98
and they increased slowly. This has been ascribed to the lack of an
appropriation for promotion,99 but the inability to promise specific
services undoubtedly contributed; when, in 1934, NTC reduced mem-
bership dues and offered more definite services, membership grew
rapidly, reaching three hundred in June 1935. 10°

NTC's financial career was checkered. In addition to exhibit fees and
the sale of publications, annual grants of approximately five thousand
dollars from the AAAE supplemented the dues.101 The AAAE in-
tended to withdraw its support in 1935, but it made an "emergency
grant" of two thousand dollars for 1935-1936 because of the burden
of the NTC help to the Federal Theatre and the belief that dues and
publications might carry NTC if it had one more year in which to

NATIONAL THEATRE ORGANIZATIONS 653

grow.102 However, another deficit occurred in 19354936. Rosamond
Gilder, half-time editorial secretary almost from NTC's beginning,
took an editorial position with the Federal Theatre Project in order to
remove herself from the NTC budget, to continue similar work, and
to be able to carry on NTC work without salary.103

Mabie and others proposed that the New York office be closed to
save money, that "the work of the secretary-treasurer be separated
from tasks which might be assigned to another person as New York
representative," 104 and that in other ways the activities be curtailed
to keep within the anticipated income. A questionnaire ballot submit-
ted to the Council 105 offered as alternative that individual members
of the Council underwrite NTC to the extent of three to five hundred
dollars each. The vote favored the closing of the New York office.106

Negotiations with the Rockefeller Foundation, begun by Isaacs 107
and others, became promising at about the same time. At Council
Meetings in New York, December 27-28, 1936, the constitution was
tentatively revised (formally adopted in 1937) to conform to the
general policy of the Foundation in making grants.108 Sawyer Falk
made the clearest statement of this policy in 1945:

The Rockefeller Foundation is committed to a policy of aid on a university
level and not on a general educational level. It is interested in sowing its seed
in definitely fertile soil and not scattering it to the winds. Hence NTC is,
perforce, an organization made up of certain selected leaders in the field of
drama and not of anyone and everyone who has the urge to be identified
with it.109

The Foundation further required that the secretary and the treasurer
remain in office during the period of a specific grant. The rewritten
constitution put the business of the Conference in the hands of an
executive committee (trustees of the fund) of five including a perma-
nent secretary,110 and limited the total membership to twenty-five,
with the current members of the Council becoming the initial mem-
bers. Isaacs was so strongly opposed to the reduction in membership
that she resigned as secretary-treasurer.111 NTC received a series of
grants from Rockefeller totalling more than two hundred thousand
dollars,112 beginning in 1937 and terminating in 1950. It is now in the
process of adjusting its services and goals to the more limited funds
provided by dues alone.

What contributions has NTC made to theatre education? To dis-
cover the most valuable services which could be supplied by NTC,
Isaacs in 1933 made a questionnaire survey of the noncommercial the-
atre of the country on an AAAE grant of four thousand dollars.113 Her
summary of the survey provided the specific early goals of the Con-
ference:

654 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

Almost all the work indicated as within the scope of the National Theatre
Conference can be handled by an organized exchange of information and
ideas by four [sic] methods:

(1) CONFERENCES-local, regional, and national. The literal "meeting
of minds'* which is, especially in the arts, the most creative and energizing
form of exchange.

(2) INFORMATION BUREAUS-regional and national, chiefly to make
known the best sources of information.

(3) PUBLICATIONS-The printing, reprinting, and distribution of books,
brochures, articles, etc., which are of special interest and use to workers in
the theatre, and teachers of the theatre arts, or such as may stimulate a larger
and finer audience interest in the theatre.

(4) NEWS LETTERS-to members.

(5) EXHIBITIONS-A visual presentation of the best standards of the-
atre production, design, architecture, books, costumes, etc.114

Some aims were never implemented because AAAE earmarked its
grants for publications and other projects in which it was most directly
interested; 115 for others there were insufficient funds. Some of the goals
were too large to be attacked directly, and the possible indirect
influence cannot be evaluated with so many other agencies working
toward similar objectives.

But the record shows some accomplishments. In the early years,
especially, was NTC's publication record notable. The list includes
Gilder's A Theatre Library ( 1932), Stanley McCandless* A Method of
Lighting the Stage (1932), Henning Nelms' Lighting the Amateur
Stage (1932), Boleslavskys Acting, the First Six Lessons (1933),
Dorothy Coifs Kai Khosru and Other Plays for Children (1934),
Behind the Magic Curtain: Eight Folk Scenes (1935), the Neighbor-
hood Playhouse promptbook for the Little Clay Cart (1934), Isaacs'
Architecture for the New Theatre (1935), and Gilder and George
Freedley's Theatre Collections in Libraries and Museums (1936). A
number of booklets and many leaflets of speeches, play lists, and so
forth, supplemented these major publications.

During the same period, a number of special projects benefited the
theatre as a whole. The first was Isaacs' Survey. In 1934-1935 NTC
made a survey of four hundred "stock towns" in order to demon-
strate to the Dramatists Guild that these no longer contained stock
companies, and that there was therefore no reason for delay in the
release of plays to noncommercial theatres in these areas.116 In
November 1934 the Theatre Code Authority of the Federal Govern-
ment attempted to place the nonprofessional theatre under the terms
of the Professional Theatre Code, but Isaacs, Gilder, and Boyd Smith
spearheaded a successful campaign to prevent this.117 About the same
time Actors Equity prepared to rule that the Pasadena Community

NATIONAL, THEATRE ORGANIZATIONS 655

Playhouse (and by implication many other community theatres) was
a commercial theatre and that, therefore, Equity members must re-
ceive their minimum salaries when they played there.118 NTC inter-
vened and persuaded Equity to delay action until Brown flew to
New York and, with NTC assistance, demonstrated the noncommercial
status of the theatre by proof of government exemptions from income
taxes, and so forth.

In this early period NTC continued conferences— though they were
often limited to the Council,119 prepared exhibitions which it rented to
members,120 and published— albeit irregularly—a "Newsletter" which
kept members informed of NTC activities.

The planning in the early years emphasized regional organization,
but although NTC appointed regional directors,121 this activity never
assumed importance.122 However, the 1934-1935 report of NTC states
that the Federal Theatre plan of operation stemmed essentially from
the regional planning of NTC,123 and Hallie Flanagan Davis, director
of the Federal Theatre Project, confirms this.124 The 1950 regional
planning of the American National Theatre and Academy 125 followed
a similar pattern.

After reorganization, NTC continued some general services, but
the policy of the Rockefeller Foundation necessitated emphasis on
the training of outstanding individuals. NTC published books,126 pam-
phlets, and a quarterly Bulletin; 127 operated a placement register;
promoted and supported regional conferences by subsidizing costs
of preliminary organization, running expenses, and speakers' fees;
conducted a Veterans7 Counseling Service; 128 arranged for royalties
by "block buying"; 129 secured release of plays to its members prior to
Broadway production (Saroyan's A Decent Birth, a Happy Funeral 13°
and Jim Dandy y131 Flavin's In the Good Old Summer Time., and
Anderson's The Eve of St. Mark); 132 and helped to organize the
Army theatre program.133 The group expended most of its funds on
playwriting scholarships,134 playwriting prizes for the armed forces,135
grants for study, travel, and artist-in-residence programs, a touring
acting company at Indiana University,136 and a "show-case" in New
York for recent college graduates.137

Probably the most valuable service of the NTC to its members
throughout its existence has been the opportunity it afforded through
its annual conferences, for a group of the leaders of the noncommercial
theatre to meet for a few days and exchange ideas and viewpoints.
This is the justification for the limitation of the membership. An
unfortunate aspect of this, however, is that theatre workers (nonmem-
bers of NTC probably more than the members) have come to look
upon membership in it as a recognition of ability, and failure to

656 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

gain membership as a slight upon their achievements. This feeling of
slight was less strong and widespread when NTC rigorously held
itself to twenty-five members than it seems to be now that the
membership is nearly a hundred. Yet the intimacy of the organization
is its essential value, and this would be lost if it expanded membership
appreciably.

Except for the scholarship and conference type of activities, the
broad scope of NTC's educational work had decreased with the
years; it has assumed the specialized aspect of "adult education*' for
its membership. This is a natural result of the policy of the Founda-
tion to limit membership to those with considerable experience. It is
probable that the noncommercial theatre generally profits from the dis-
cussions held within NTC, for ideas expressed there inevitably per-
meate through participation by members in the meetings of larger
national organizations, through their participation in regional confer-
ences, and through their teaching,

American Educational Theatre Association

Because the small group of pioneers in universities and community
theatres who set up new standards of production and goals higher
than those of previous "amateur dramatics" had felt the need to
refresh themselves by exchange of ideas with others on their level of
experience, the organization of NTC had been inevitable. The emer-
gence of an educational theatre organization out of the general speech
association was almost as inevitable.

A survey of the educational theatre situation in the thirties will
reveal why this was so. Theatre teaching increased rapidly in the
twenties and thirties.138 The quality of college and high-school pro-
ductions improved: in the colleges, dramatic work shifted from
extracurricular to academic status; in high schools, the attitude toward
plays became more serious and some offered dramatics courses. Many
teachers were devoting full time or major emphasis to this work,
often without being specifically trained for it; they needed extended
conferences, committee work, and more publication of scholarly and
pedagogical writings, NTC could have filled this need, but it held
few open conferences; it was basically a service organization which
did not encourage active committee work, and the reorganization of
1936 prevented increase of its membership, NATS could have filled
the need, but most of its officers were from the public speaking field,
and they underestimated the needs. Theatre people found it adminis-
tratively difficult to work through them to expand the theatre phase of

NATIONAL THEATRE ORGANIZATIONS 657

the convention program, committee organization, and publication.
Consequently teachers of theatre felt neglected and slighted.139 Had
the NATS taken the initiative by establishing a theatre section with
some freedom to do its own planning and to organize its own activities,
a permanent relationship might have continued, but in the absence
of this, the American Educational Theatre Association started as a
"functioning" section of the NATS,140 then dropped all reference to
NATS in the revision of the Constitution in 1941, and in later years has
planned to hold conventions apart from the parent organization.

The story of AETA's founding and growth reveals the enthusiasm
and earnest purpose of the men and women who comprise its mem-
bership. An educational theatre organization had been discussed by
E. C. Mabie 141 and others for several years, but the final impetus
came with the reduction in the membership of NTC. Mabie, having
taken the leadership in the NTC reorganization in New York on De-
cember 28, 1936, also led in organizing AETA at the NATS conven-
tion in St. Louis two days later.

Theatre teachers were called together on the morning of December
30, the last day of the NATS convention, at the Hotel Statler in St.
Louis. With Mabie as temporary chairman the assembly voted to
form an association, and a committee drafted a constitution which
was adopted that afternoon.142 The constitution stated that the asso-
ciation intended to act as a functioning section of NATS.

Officers elected at this meeting were President, Mabie; Vice-Presi-
dent, Alexander M. Drummond; Secretary-Treasurer, Donald Win-
bigler; Executive Council: F. A. Buerki, Lester L. Hale, Jessie T.
Casebolt, Dina Rees Evans, Claude L. Shaver, Florence B. Hubbard,
Barclay Leathern, Lee Norvelle, and Katharine Ommanney.143

Constitutional changes have been necessary from time to time. In
December, 1941, AETA adopted a new constitution144 which elim-
inated all reference to NATS. A major revision in 1945 specified that
"the name of the Vice-President each year shall be submitted by the
Nominating Committee as candidate for President" 145 in order to
insure more continuity of administration. In 1947 AETA altered the
nominating procedure to provide a more democratic method of se-
lecting the Nominating Committee and to permit ample time for
consideration.146 In 1949 the association created the office of Adminis-
trative Vice-President to relieve the President of some supervisory
duties. Jack Morrison was the first to hold this office.147

AETA's membership grew slowly in the first years, dropped slightly
during the war years, and increased rapidly in the years immediately
following the war, rising from 185 in 1944 to 2192 in 1950.148

658 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

Spending nearly all its income each year,149 AETA has remained a
nonprofit organization, risking bankruptcy with every major publica-
tion venture.150

AETA has made major contributions to education in theatre. Prob-
ably its greatest service has been to make teachers of theatre aware
of their status as a professional group, and to fuse them into a cohesive
body working for an improvement in the quality and an increase in the
stature of theatre studies in the curriculum. The size and representa-
tiveness of AETA's membership have given it the right to speak for
the teachers of theatre of the country; national and international agen-
cies, including ANTA, the State Department, the Veterans Admin-
istration, Senators and Representatives, the International Theatre
Institute of UNESCO, and the British Society for Theatre Research,
seek its advice.151

Through its conventions, AETA has raised standards of production
and scholarly activity and has stimulated curricular study of theatre in
the secondary schools. The association held annual national conven-
tions in conjunction with the NATS (later renamed the Speech Asso-
ciation of America) except for 1942 and 1944152 The convention pro-
gram expanded rapidly to a pattern of approximately four general
sessions, twenty sectional meetings, and fifteen project meetings for
the years 1949-1952.153 Sections treated acting; directing; stagecraft
and design; the specialized pedagogical problems at the levels of
children's theatre, secondary schools, colleges, and graduate studies;
and the specialized forms of theatre such as cinema, television, and
radio drama. Starting with the 1948 Convention, planned by Hubert
C. Heffner, the emphasis on the scholarly side of theatre work in-
creased with separate sections on theatre history, dramatic literature,
and criticism. In addition sections from time to time are devoted to
specialized topics such as playwriting, student problems, audio-visual
aids, adult education as a community theatre function, guidance,
architecture, conferences and festivals, theatre libraries, and extra-
curricular theatre.

The organization took the leadership in arranging AETA meetings
in connection with the regional speech associations, thereby increas-
ing the number of theatre sections offered at these meetings, and
serving many teachers who seldom attend national conventions.
Several more limited regional conferences also have been arranged
under the stimulus of AETA-the first ones being the Southern
California Section of AETA spearheaded by Morrison, and the North-
western Conference organized by Horace Robinson at the University
of Oregon.

Further, AETA has encouraged the children's theatre workers to

NATIONAL THEATRE ORGANIZATIONS 659

weld themselves into an active, cohesive group. It sponsors an annual
Children's Theatre Conference (designated as Convention starting
with 1951) 154 which meets in the summer. Winifred Ward called an
organizational meeting in 1944 at Northwestern University; 155 AETA
sponsored annual conferences, beginning with one at Seattle in 1946.156
This project, designated Children's Theatre Conference in 1950, and
Children's Theatre Division in 1952 157 has officers and a council of
its own, and has become an autonomous division within AETA.

Through its publications, too, AETA has contributed materially to
education. As with the conventions, publications have served to raise
production standards, and to stimulate curricular study in theatre. In
addition, the publications have served to disseminate all types of the-
atre information, scholarly and pedagogical.

Almost from the time of its organization AETA sought to issue a
journal devoted to educational theatre. In 1940 Heffner, as chairman
of the AETA Publications Committee, supported an NTC request to
the Rockefeller Foundation for a quarterly publication, under the
impression that it was to be a joint AETA-NTC project,158 but when
the grant was made NTC considered it a grant in support of the NTC
Bulletin.15 9 Richard Ceough then offered to finance personally a the-
atre journal if AETA would help to launch it It was to start as an
annual and eventually to become a quarterly. The Advisory Council
approved this plan in 1941,160 but the AETA sponsorship did not
eventuate, and Ceough alone inaugurated Theatre Annual with a 1942
issue,161

Meanwhile AETA began a mimeographed "AETA Newsletter" in
1942, 162 with Valentine Windt as its first full-time editor after a year
of committee editorship. Irregularly published at first, it soon appeared
eight times a year and continued until the launching of the Educational
Theatre Journal™3

This long-sought quarterly began publication in October 1949 with
Barnard Hewitt as editor.164 The first issue was devoted to reports
from committee efforts known as Work-Projects. Editor Hewitt stated,
". . . the Journal will continue to publish the results of such group
efforts. In addition, however, the editors hope soon to publish indi-
vidually written articles, both popular and scholarly. . . . Our purpose
is to make the Educational Theatre Journal of the greatest possible
use to students, workers, and teachers of educational theatre and
drama in all aspects and at all levels." 165

AETA has from its origin put emphasis on co-operative group work.
Its projects and committees have been the core function. In 1938 its
projects numbered only eight.166 These have increased and changed
until, in 1952, there are twenty-five, in addition to a number of con-

660 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

tinning committees and specialized investigations under the proj-
ects.167

Reports from these projects comprised the chief publications of
AETA until the Journal was established. The pamphlet reports in-
cluded: Syllabus for a Proposed Course in Dramatics at the High
School Level (three editions, 1940, 1943, 1946, the last edition in co-
operation with NTS), A Selected List of Painting, Music, and the
Dance Useful to Theatre Workers (n.d., about 1943), Research in
Drama and the Theatre in the Universities and Colleges of the United
States, 1937-1942 (1944), Teaching Dramatic Arts in the Secondary
Schools (1950), Drama Festivals (1945), Records for Use in the
Teaching of Dramatics (1946), A Selected Bibliography on Theatre
and the Social Scene (1946), 16mm Films for Use in the Teaching of
Dramatics (1947), A Selected Bibliography and Critical Comment on
the Art, Theory, and Technique of Acting (1948), National Directory
of Drama Festivals and Contests Held in the United States during the
School Year 1946-47 (1948), Directory of Children's Theatre (1948,
with supplements, published by ANTA for AETA), A Suggested Out-
line for a Course of Study in Dramatic Arts in the Secondary Schools
(1950, reprinted from March 1950 Journal), as well as annual directo-
ries of members and mimeographed compilations of reports from
projects.

AETA accepted an invitation, extended through SAA, to prepare
copy for a special issue of The Bulletin of the National Association of
Secondary-School Principals on "Dramatics in the Secondary School."
This appeared in December 1949 under the editorship of Hugh W.
Gillis.168 A booklet entitled The Educational Theatre in Adult Educa-
tion was prepared under the editorship of Robert Card.169

The Research Project, with John H. McDowell as chairman, pre-
pared A Bibliography on Theatre and Drama in American Colleges
and Universities, 1937-1947. This repeated the work of the previous
bibliography because the initial five-year study was out of print.
Since AETA was unable to finance the publication alone, the SAA
printed it as a special issue of Speech Monographs,1™ with AETA un-
derwriting a portion of the cost.171 The Bibliography Project is at
work on a 1948-1952 continuation of this study.172

The above list of projects and publications includes several which
were the result of co-operation with other organizations. AETA's
Advisory Council includes representatives of almost all the active
theatre organizations, thus facilitating co-operation with one or more
of them in large-scale programs for the betterment of educational
theatre and of the theatre in general.

NATIONAL THEATRE ORGANIZATIONS

Catholic Theatre Conference

By 1937 there were firmly established several organizations serving
the needs of educational theatre in general, but apparently the special
needs of some groups were not being met. Directors and sponsors of
Catholic theatre groups formed their Theatre Conference in 1937 to
"provide a channel for the exchange of inspiration and information
among groups and individuals interested in fostering and spreading
Catholic Theatre."173

Most of the problems arising during the founding and growth of
CTC are similar to those revealed by the older organizations in the field
of educational theatre; some problems and their solutions are markedly
different.

Emmet Lavery, dramatist, film scenarist, and former Director of the
National Service Bureau of the Federal Theatre, furnished the impetus
for the movement through an article in America, December 5, 1936.174
Two meetings resulted from that article. Rev. George A. Dinneen, S.J.,
pastor of St. Ignatius Church, Chicago, and Mr. Charles Costello,
director of the Loyola Community Theatre of that parish, invited inter-
ested parties to attend the first National Catholic Theatre Conference
in Chicago, June 15 and 16.175 The Blackfriars Guild, headed by Rev.
Urban Nagle, O.P., arranged for a convention for August 7 and 8 at
Catholic University in Washington.170

From twenty-eight states, 416 delegates came to attend the Chicago
meeting.177 The delegates approved temporary organization with
Lavery as Chairman to serve until the Washington convention,178 at
which time Rev. John H. Mahoney of the Catholic Theatre Guild, New
York, was elected president.179 CTC set up official headquarters in
September, 1937, at Catholic University.180

CTC established a policy of holding national conventions on alter-
nate years. Travel restrictions occasioned by World War II resulted in
a "convention by mail" in 1943, although simultaneous meetings were
held in some conveniently located metropolitan areas.181 At the 1947
convention, the name of the organization was changed from National
Catholic Theatre Conference to Catholic Theatre Conference.182

As the Conference grew, regional division became necessary. Twelve
divisions emerged, closely corresponding to those set up by ANTA in
1950.183 The West Central region organized with the Wichita Diocesan
Theatre Unit as a center. This and other diocesan units, because of their
strong independent development, for a time posed a threat to CTC.
With the assistance of members of the Hierarchy, the Conference con-
vinced the diocesan units of the advisability of accepting the national
organization's leadership.184

662 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

Financial insecurity has plagued CTC. From time to time donations
have taken care of deficits. In 1949 members of the convention agreed
to send proceeds of special benefit performances to the national office.
An anonymous donor in 1943 began contributing funds to pay a salary
for full-time services of the national secretary.185

What did CTC propose to do? The members who attended the early
meetings represented diverse interests in the theatre; they included
parish priests, theatre directors, professional actors, professional play-
wrights. Their needs varied: suggestions for play selection, assistance
with technical problems, pre-Broadway training grounds, markets for
new scripts. The diversity was reconciled by a common purpose as ulti-
mately expressed in the Constitution, June, 1945, in Article II, Section I;

1. To promote Catholic truth and principle through dramatic art and to
promote dramatic art in harmony with Catholic truth and principle.

2. To unite Catholic dramatic groups in Catholic thought and action and
to encourage the creation of new groups eligible for such union.

3. To afford service to its members.186

Catholic leaders have seen in such general purposes more specific
goals. Dr. Roy J. Dederrari, Dean of Catholic University's Summer
Session, 1937, felt that CTC would become a great collaborator in the
project of Catholic Education.187 Cardinal Mooney, Archbishop of
Detroit, viewed the Conference as an agency for Catholic Action.188
Father Dinneen, one of the founders of the Legion of Decency, looked
to the association as a complement to the Legion, as a force to encour-
age the creation of worthwhile plays.189 Father Mahoney regarded it as
a force that might serve as an "antidote to subversive and un-American
propaganda," as well as a significant step in "the gradual decentrali-
zation of the American theatre." 19°

To realize its goals CTC employed both methods that older associa-
tions had tried and methods peculiar to its own group. From the year
of its founding, CTC has boasted official publications. Under the edi-
torship of E. Francis McDevitt, a monthly Bulletin appeared for the
first time in November, 1937. Beginning with November, 1938, a quar-
terly. Catholic Theatre, served as the official organ until it was replaced
in 1941 by the more economical monthly Production Calendar.™1 From
1945 to 1951 CTC published an annual production Bulletin with photo-
graphs from the various schools and guilds, augmented by articles.192

CTC early urged its members to organize play cycles. Under this
plan, six producing units combined to provide at a given theatre, a
week of Catholic drama— a different play by a different group each
night. Each group financed its own production. Such cycles were pro-
duced in the New York and Chicago areas.193

The Conference has aided its members by maintaining a play read-

NATIONAL THEATRE ORGANIZATIONS 663

ing library of over 2000 titles and by providing a frequently revised list
of recommended plays suitable for production by Catholic groups.194

CTC has encouraged play writing through two awards: the Bishop
Shiel award in 1946 offered a prize of five hundred dollars to the
winner; the Dinneen Fellowship the same year granted the winner fif-
teen hundred dollars for the study of playwriting at Rosary College.195

Through services to a special group of educational and community
theatres, CTC has contributed to the general cause of educational
theatre.

The national educational theatre organizations have endeavored, first
of all, to spread knowledge of theatre arts and appreciation for them.
Toward this primary goal, they have achieved much. The increase in
the number of plays produced in educational institutions, for example,
cannot be unrelated to their efforts. Some of the associations, notably
the honoraries, the Negro groups, and the Catholic Theatre Confer-
ence, have contributed to this increase through encouragement of extra-
curricular activity. These same organizations have joined with the
American Educational Theatre Association and the National Theatre
Conference to win a place for theatre in the curriculum. This has led
to even more production; and increase in the number of productions
has meant increase in the number of persons participating. Recognition
of achievement, provided specifically by the honoraries, has stimulated
such participation. A portion of the general increase may be attributed
to emphasis on specialized types of production, such as children's
theatre. Fostered by AETA,196 children's theatre has grown to the
status of a major division of educational theatre activity.

Whether intended for children or adults, a surplus of good scripts has
never existed. Most of the theatre organizations have taken steps to
augment the small body of American drama through encouragement
of new authors; NTC's grants for playwriting fellowships and AETA's
Manuscript Play Project are well-known examples.

Not only has the quantity of production increased, but the quality
of production has improved also. Here again the educational theatre
organizations have contributed. In no area of achievement have the
organizations' efforts been more numerous than in that of improvement
of teachers. Conventions and publications have informed the beginner
and inspired the veteran. Meetings and writings concerning methods
and dramatic forms have stressed both the mastery of traditional con-
cepts and the need for experimentation. Nor have these efforts reached
only a limited group of enthusiastic educators. The growth in member-
ship of educational theatre organizations indicates that the number of
professionally minded theatre workers has increased.

664 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

As teaching improved, it was to be expected that standards for stu-
dent performance in all areas would rise correspondingly. In addition
to this indirect influence, the educational theatre organizations have
addressed themselves to students through publications and special
meetings.

Most of the organizations help improve the quality of production by
specific services for members, such as National Thespian Society's list
of supply dealers or NTC's effecting royalty reductions.

So that teachers and students may continue to grow in knowledge of
theatre, past and present, research in the field must proceed. Publica-
tions of the various organizations give encouragement to research by
disseminating its findings, but in addition AETA has prepared bibliog-
raphies and conducted surveys of productions.197

Dedication to worthy ideals and corresponding sincere effort to
achieve them have brought general recognition. The combined efforts
of many earnest teachers have raised curricular and extracurricular
work in theatre to a position of stature and dignity.

As the organizations have gone about the task of helping the educa-
tional theatre to produce more significant drama than ever before and
to produce it better, they have made progress toward other related
goals. First, the associations have grown in membership until they now
constitute bodies of individuals capable of unified action. AETA and
NTS, for example, can raise voices to which legislators have shown a
willingness to listen. NTC, too, is effective through its prestige. Sec-
ondly, the theatre organizations have recognized their obligation, as
educational units, to promote good international relationships. AETA,
NTC, and NTS, which have welcomed memberships from all parts of
the world, have eagerly accepted opportunities for the exchange of
ideas.198 All these groups have sent representatives to international
conferences, and AETA is compiling information on educational theatre
throughout the world.

It is important to note that the achievements toward the organiza-
tions' primary goals and achievements toward the related goals are
interactive. As a result of international liaison and a capacity for potent
unified action, the task of spreading information about, and esteem of,
the theatre is facilitated.

But achievement alone does not characterize the history of educa-
tional theatre organizations; there are areas distinguished by lack of
progress. On the secondary-school level, in particular, much remains
for the educational theatre to accomplish. Its organizations have been
largely ineffective in raising the standards of high-school play selection.
Examples of high-school theatre programs of quality may be cited, it is
true, but in general, significant drama is infrequently chosen for pro-

NATIONAL THEATRE ORGANIZATIONS 665

duction on the secondary level. In spite of several excellent studies in
secondary-school curricula, there has been no concerted campaign to
introduce theatre studies into the secondary-school curriculum. Further,
only recently have studies been undertaken to set standards for the
high-school director.

Curricular studies on the college level are long overdue. There is
little examination of requirements for undergraduate degrees in theatre
or of standards for graduate work.

Evaluation of the past in terms of failure and achievement indicates
that the educational theatre organizations cannot relax their efforts in
the future. The outlook for the groups can be examined from the indi-
vidual and from the collective point of view.

Considering the groups individually, it would appear that AETA,
CTC, the Negro associations, and NTS embrace relatively clearly
defined programs which are within the power of the groups to carry
out, and as a result it is likely that these groups will continue to grow
in membership and in service. In the case of honor societies other than
NTS, the diminishing activity of chapters at institutions where cur-
ricular theatre obtains suggests that the societies will become less
important. NTC is experiencing a period of reorganization, and its
future is not predictable.

In general, it seems likely that the groups which continue to function
will co-operate more closely, engaging in joint efforts and performing
services for each other. At present, an avenue for co-operation exists in
representation on AETA's Advisory Council.109

Notes

1. Dina Rees Evans, "A Preliminary Study of Play Production in Secondary
Schools/' unpublished M.A. thesis, Iowa, 1929, pp. 3, 18-23.

2. Ibid., pp. 23-28. At the time of founding, the organization was called
National Association of Academic Teachers of Public Speaking.

3. The producing groups, in turn, evolved from "annual exhibitions" of the
college literary societies. As illustrative of the development of producing units
the authors suggest the Yale University Dramatic Association. See The Memorial
Quadrangle, comp. Robert Dudley French (New Haven, 1929), pp. 57-59;
William Lyon Phelps, "Culture Comes to Yale/7 Jale News (50th anniversary
issue, 1929), p. 44; L. G. Price, "American Undergraduate Dramatics/' Bookman,
XVIII (December, 1903), 373-388.

4. Baird's Manual, 13th ed. (Menasha, Wis., 1935), pp. 1-2, 4, 396, 440,
442.

5. Ibid., p. 558; Prospectus of Zeta Phi Eta (1947).

6. Ibid., 9th ed., p. 590. Phi Alpha Tau*s listing in Baird's Manual continues
through the 12th ed. (1930); thereafter it does not appear.

7. Ibid., 13th ed., p. 568.

8. History and Scope of the National Collegiate Players, pamphlet issued by
the national office. The U. of Washington did not join NCP at the time of the
merger. Bairtfs Manual, 15th ed., also lists chapters of AUP at U. of Chicago,

666 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

Northwestern U.? and U. of Wisconsin. In an interview January, 28, 1952,
Lawrence W. Murphy, a freshman at Wisconsin in 1914 (the year of the Univer-
sity's supposed establishment of a chapter), recalled a visit to the campus of
AUP representatives for the purpose of such establishment. Lack of interest met
the organizers. Individual producing groups were not ready to co-operate with
each other, much less with groups from other schools. Murphy concedes the
possibility that individuals may have taken out membership, but does not recall
the establishment of a chapter.

9. Interview with Lawrence W. Murphy, January 28, 1952.

10. According to Murphy, charter members included Fred Bickel (now known
as Frederick March), Janet Durrie, Julia Hanks, John McPherrine, Eleanor
Riley, and Helen Colby.

11. E. B. Gordon, Gertrude Johnson, J. M. O'Neill, and Andrew T. Weaver.

12. Interview with Murphy.

13. History and Scope of NCP.

14. Constitution and By-Laws of National Collegiate Players, pamphlet pre-
pared by national office.

15. Personal letter from Delwin Dusenberry, August 14, 1951.

16. History and Scope of NCP.

17. Baird's Manual 13th ed., p. 436.

18. Portions of a letter circulated by Pelsma soliciting members are repro-
duced under "A Dramatic Fraternity" in the QJSE, V (October, 1919), 379.

19. Personal letter from Pelsma, July 28, 1952.

20. Personal letter from R. C. Hunter, August 19, 1952. Notes from the
TAP office at State College, Pa., received January 19, 1953, list subsequent presi-
dents, including Maud May Babcock, U. of Utah; C. L. Menser, vice-president of
NBC; Irving C. Stover, John B. Stetson U.; Lee Norvelle, U. of Indiana; and
R. C. Hunter, Ohio Wesleyan U.

21. Letter from Pelsma. Arthur C. Cloetingh, Pennsylvania State College, be-
came secretary in 1928 and held the office for twenty-five years.

22. Baird's Manual, 13th ed., p. 436.

23. Constitution of the Theta Alpha Phi, issued by the national office, n.d.

24. Ibid.

25. Personal letter from Cloetingh, c. January 25, 1953.

26. Notes from TAP office.

27. Personal letter from Paul F. Opp, June 22, 1951. Notes from the TAP
office state that TAP chapters "are limited to Class A Colleges and Universities."

28. Baird's Manual, 13th ed., p. 433.

29. Personal letter from E. Turner Stump, May 21, 1952.

30. Baird's Manual, 13th ed., p. 433.

31. Paul F. Opp, "Alpha Psi Omega," Southern Speech Bulletin (March,
1941), pp. 91-94.

32. Ibid.

33. Personal letter from Earl Blank, June 21, 1951.

34. Letter from Stump.

35. Letter from Blank.

36. The National Thespian Society (rev. 1949), pamphlet issued by national
office, p. 3.

37. Ibid., p. 15. Harry T. Leeper was the first editor. Ernest Bavely took
over as editor in 1935, at which time bimonthly publication was undertaken.

38. Personal letter from Leon C, Miller, May 22, 1952.

39. NTS, p. 15.

40. Letter from Miller, July 1, 1952.

41. Ernest Bavely, "Aims and Purposes of the National Thespians," The Hish
School Thespian, V (October, 1929), 11.

42. NTS, p. 4.

43. Letter from Opp.

NATIONAL THEATRE ORGANIZATIONS 667

44. "Delta Psi Omega," typed ms. issued from DPO national office.

45. Interview with Karl Wmdesheim, June 23, 1952. The committee also
included Windesheim and Campton Bell.

46. Constitution and By-Laws of Junior Collegiate Players, pamphlet issued
by national office.

47. In 1953 the cumulative membership figures were as follows: NCP— 6,575
in 54 chapters; TAP-1,572 in 55 chapters; APO-22,122 in 303 chapters; NTS—
190,000 in 1256 troupes; DPO-11,580 in 200 chapters; JCP-68 in 2 chapters.

48. Singer A. Buchanan, "The Development of the Educational Theatre in
Negro Colleges and Universities from 1925 to 1949," unpublished M.A. thesis,
Tennessee A. and I., 1949, pp. 10, 12. Mr. Buchanan's thesis was the first to be
accepted by any Negro college as partial fulfillment of the requirements for an
advanced degree in Speech and Drama.

49. Frank Yerby, "The Little Theatre in Negro Colleges," unpublished M.A.
thesis, Fisk, 1938, pp. 2-4. Examples include the Ethiopian Art Theatre of
Chicago, The Negro Art Players of New York, the Gilpm Players of Cleveland.

50. Notable among the group stand Eugene O'Neill's All God's Chillun Got
Wings and Marc Connelly's Green Pastures.

51. Yerby, pp. 4, 6-10, notes the founding of twelve specific groups in the
1920-1929 period and sixteen in the 1930-1937 period. Many were named for
popular Negro stage personalities. The plays of Paul Green and Willis Richard-
son constituted an important part of their repertory.

52. Buchanan, p. 20. Current president (1953) is Fannin S. Belcher.

53. Personal letter from Randolph Edmonds, June 12, 1952.

54. Ethlynne Thomas, "Common Goals," SADSA Encore (1948), 25.

55. Letter from Edmonds.

56. Ibid.

57. Carrie Pembroke, vice-president; Lillian Voorhees, secretary; Lois P.
Turner, treasurer.

58. Buchanan, p. 24, lists the components of the areas.

59. Lillian W. Voorhees, "SADSA Yesterday and Tomorrow," SADSA Encore
(1948), p. 12.

60. Buchanan, pp. 26, 28.

61. Ibid., p. 31.

62. Personal letter from Thomas E. Poag, August 18, 1951; "Minutes of
AETA Advisory Council Meetings, December 27-30, 1950," item 16. The Council
voted to interpret the AETA Constitution more strictly, and to limit representation
on the Council to Organizational Members with a nationally distributed membership,
could appoint a member to the Council.

63. James O. Hopson became president of NADSA in 1951.

64. Personal letter from Lillian Voorhees, May 25, 1952.

65. Buchanan, p. 35, fn. 9.

66. "Minutes of AETA Advisory Council Meetings, December 26-29, 1951,"
item 48. James O. Hopson reported that during 1951 Poag was elected President
of the interracial Southeastern Theatre Conference, that Tenn. A. and I, College
was elected to chapter membership in Theta Alpha Phi, and that Negro mem-
berships were accepted in the Southern Speech Association.

67. Buchanan, p. 35, fn. 9.

68. Ibid., pp. 12, 20, 22.

69. Randolph Edmonds, "The Negro Little Theatre Movement," The Negro
History Bulletin (January, 1949), p. 92.

70. Ibid.

71. Buchanan, p. 37.

72. Thomas, p. 25.

73. Buchanan, p. 21.

74. Thomas, p. 25.

668 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

75. Ibid.; Buchanan, p. 22.

76. Letter from Voornees.

77. Theatre Arts, IX (September, 1925), 587. Special issue on Little Theatres.

78. Ibid., IX (November, 1925), 762. Other references to national organiza-
tions occur especially in X (March, May, 1926), "Editorially Speaking" column
in advertising pp.; X (September, 1926), 578.

79. Edith J. R. Isaacs, The American Theatre in Social and Educational Life:
A Survey of its Needs and Opportunities (New York: NTG, 1932), 5 (Gilder
files). "Gilder files" refers to materials examined December, 1950, in Rosamond
Gilder's personal files stored at Theatre Arts Books, then at 270 Madison Ave.,
NYC. Copies of most of these materials are filed with the National Theatre
Conference, Western Reserve U., Cleveland, Ohio (confirmed by personal letter
from Barclay Leathern, September 12, 1951), and with the NY Pub. Lib. (con-
firmed by personal letter from Paul Myers, September 5, 1951).

80. Evans, p. 3.

81. Theatre Arts, passim, especially X (May, 1926), advertising pages; XI (June,
1927), 463; XVIII (April, 1934), 238; XVIII (July, 1934), 564; XXIII (July,
1939), 536.

82. Ibid., IX (December, 1925), 840; Angela Guidry, "A History of the
Drama League of America,'* unpublished M.A. thesis, Louisiana State University
and A. & M. College, 1949, p. 97.

83. Ibid., X (January, 1926), 58.

84. Personal letter from Frederic McConnell, October 18, 1951.

85. Theatre Arts, XI (January, 1927), 74; XI (March, 1927), 217; XI (April,
1927), 307. Personal letter from Boyd Smith, November 15, 1951, following a
study of Baker's correspondence files, states, "There is considerable correspond-
ence here following this conference, between Mr. Baker and various other persons
for the purpose of holding regional conferences and I find definitely four were
held. These were at North Carolina, Iowa, Pasadena, and Dallas. These followed
within the next two, three, or four years this conference at Yale."

86. Kenneth Macgowan, Footlights Across America (New York, 1929), pp.
311-325.

87. "A Dozen Rubicons," Theatre Arts, XIII (July, 1929), 480.

88. A sample is a four-page mimeographed prospectus for an organization
similar to NTC issued by him "revised-March 26, 1930" from the producers'
office of Macgowan and Joseph Vernor Reed, 122 East 42nd St., N. Y. (Wyckoff
files). "Wyckoff files" refers to materials in the personal files of Alexander
Wyckoff, 170 Prospect St., Leonia, N. J.

89. Rosamond Gilder, "National Theatre Conference Report of Funds Re-
ceived and Expended," May 13, 1935. Carbon copy of typewritten report (Gilder
files).

90. Isaacs, Survey, introductory pages. The Council consisted of Baker, Gilmor
Brown, Jasper Deeter, Glenn Hughes, Isaacs, Frederick Koch, Garrett Leverton,
McConnell, Mabie, Boyd Martin, Macgowan, Stevens, Tucker, and Wyckoff.
Rupel Jones was added to the Council by a telegraphic vote initiated by Isaacs
November 16, 1932 (Gilder files).

Bulletin, National Theatre Conference, passim, and other sources give NTC
officers (as of June 1, 1953) -Presidents: Baker (1932-35), Brown (1935-40), Paul
Green (1940-42), Lee Norvelle (1942-44), Sawyer Falk (1944--); Executive Secre-
taries: Isaacs (1932-36), Frank Fowler (1936-37), Leathern (1938-); Treasurers:
Isaacs (1932-36), records incomplete for the transitional period, McConnell
(1939-). Personal letter from Leathern, February 20, 1952, states that officers
never received salaries.

Though others—notably Macgowan, Mabie, Isaacs, and Koch—were active in
initiating NTC, innumerable sources speak of Baker as organizer and early
leader: personal conversations with Gilder, December 24-26, 1950; "NTC
Newsletter" (February, 1934); Theatre Arts XIX (February, 1935), 85; XIX

NATIONAL THEATRE ORGANIZATIONS 669

(July, 1935), 538; "Report of the February 22-23, 1935, Council Meeting at
Yale" (Wyckoff files).

91. "Minutes of Council Meetings, February 22-23, 1935" (Wyckoff files).

92. "Membership Circular of 1933" (Gilder files).

93. Theatre Arts, XXXI (October, 1947), 10. See also Bulletin, IX (April,
1947), 21; Mary Morris, "Tryout Studio in New York," X (July, 1948), 46.

94. "Membership Circular of 1933."

95. Gilder, "NTC Report, May 13, 1935"; "Tentative Revision of Constitution,
December 28, 1936"; "Minutes of National Meeting, December 27-30, 1937."
(Copies of all in Gilder's files.)

96. Gilder, "NTC Report, May 13, 1935."

97. "NTC Newsletter" (November 19, 1932). (Gilder files.)

98. Ibid. (February, 1934).

99. Ibid.

100. "NTC 1934-35 Report to AAAE" (September 19, 1935). (Carbon copy
in Gilder files.)

101. "NTC Newsletter" (November 19, 1932). (Gilder files.)

102. "NTC 1935-36 Report to AAAE" (September 15, 1936). (Carbon copy
in Gilder files.)

103. Personal conversation with Gilder, December 24, 1950.

104. Questionnaire sent by Mabie to Council for vote, April 16, 1936 (WyckofE
files).

105. Letters from Mabie to Wyckoff, January 7 and April 16, 1936 (Wyckoff
files).

106. "NTC Newsletter" (June 17, 1936). (Wyckoff files.)

107. On instructions from the NTC Council, Isaacs had requested a grant
from Rockefeller Foundation in April, 1935. "Minutes of Council Meeting,
December 29-30, 1935" (Wyckoff files) record that Isaacs stated "nor was there
any indication of a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation."

108. Copy of letter from Mabie to Brown, January 6, 1937 (Wyckoff files)
states that at the December 27, 1936, Council Meeting, NTC voted to dissolve,
but that Mabie secured assurances from David Stevens, an official of Rockefeller,
that he would recommend grants for five years. See also David Stevens, "His-
torical Notes," Bulletin, XII (December, 1950), 39.

109. Bulletin, VIII (March, 1946), 45.

110. "Constitution of December, 1937," Art. V, Sec. 1, 2, 3 (copy in Gilder
files). The Executive Committee consisted of Brown as President, Nicoll and
Mabie as Vice-Presidents, and Leathern and McConnell as elected members.
The last two became the permanent secretary and treasurer respectively.

111. Personal conversation with Gilder, December 24, 1950.

112. These grants include $5000 for May 15, 1937-May 14, 1938 for operating
expenses, study of the royalty problems, and Gilder's library study; $25,000 for
fellowships June 30, 1940-June 30, 1944; $155,000 "for general administration,
postwar fellowships and rehabilitation, publications, and developmental projects"
for the five years beginning Janua'ry 1, 1946; $10,000 for fellowships December
1949-December 1950; $7,500 for regional conferences June 1949. See Bulletin,
VII (January, 1945), 50; VII (April, 1945), 30; VIII (March, 1946), 50;
XI (August, 1949), 55; Theatre Arts, XXIX (July, 1945), 44; letter from Brown
to Wyckoff, June 15, 1937 (Wyckoff files); and personal letter from McConnell,
March 10, 1952.

113. Gilder, "NTC Report, May 13, 1935."

114. Isaacs, Survey, 55.

115. NTC mimeographed letter to Regional Directors, January 28, 1933 (Gilder
files).

116. "There's Millions in It," Theatre Arts, XIX (May, 1935), 343.

117. "NTC Newsletter" (April, 1934) (Wyckoff files) states that at the
hearings, Frank Gillmore, President of Actors Equity, suggested "two or three

670 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

methods of curtailing what his committee considered unfair competition on the
part of the Little Theatres throughout the country/' See also Equity (November,
1934), p. 5.

118. "NTC 1934-35 Report to AAAE" (September 19, 1935).

119. Bulletin, passim, and Theatre Arts, passim. NTC Conferences were held
spasmodically on invitation in the first few years, some being open and some
limited to the Council. A few were held at the same time as SAA and AETA
conventions. A Thanksgiving meeting in N. Y. became traditional after 1940.

120. Early touring exhibits included original Callot engravings of Commedia
dell' Arte, T. W. Stevens' drawings for From Athens to Broadway, and * Sketch
to Stage/' an exhibit prepared by Yale University showing the successive types
of working drawings transforming a designer's sketch into a completed setting.
Theatre Arts, XVIII (January, 1934), advertising pages,

121. "NTC Newsletter" (January 3, 1933). (Gilder files.)

122. "Minutes of Council Meeting, December 29-30, 1935 (Wyckoff files)
record that the regional plan "had actually not been put into operation at all."

123. Gilder, "NTC Report, May 13, 1935."

124. "Federal Theatre Project," Theatre Arts, XIX (November, 1933), 865.

125. "Resolutions Adopted by the National Theatre Assembly, January 2-4,
1951," No. VII. (Distributed by ANTA.)

126. Organizing a Community Theatre, ed. Samuel Selden (Iy45j; Are lou
Going to Build a Theatre?, ed. Paul Baker and George Freedley (1947); Roy
Stallings and Paul Myers, Guide to Theatre Reading (1949).

127. Bulletin, passim. Initiated in April, 1939, as Quarterly Bulletin, the title
was shortened in January, 1944, in the hope that more frequent publication
might take place; this never occurred. Publication was discontinued December,
1950 after a total of forty-six issues. McConnell was permanent editor.

128. Robert C. Schnitzer, "Players Well Bestowed," Bulletin, VIII (March,
1946), 11; VIII (June, 1946), 31. Run by Schnitzer, the agency served fifteen
hundred to two thousand by mail, phone, or personal conference.

129. Theatre Arts, XXIII (January, 1939), 75; XXIII (November, 1939),
837; Bulletin, VI (January, 1944), 43; VI (April, 1944), 60. Approximately one
thousand reductions were secured.

130. Bulletin, VI (April, 1944), 35.

131. Theatre Arts, XXV (November, 1941), 777.

132. Ibid., XXVI (November, 1942), 666; XXVII (July, 1943), 392. A com-
mercial production of The Eve of St. Mark was arranged, and the producer
exercised his right under the Dramatists Guild contract to withdraw it from ama-
teur production.

133. Ibid., XXIII (November, 1939), 839.

134. Bulletin, VII (January, 1945), 50; VI (October, 1944), 50; VI (April,
1944), 30; VIII (June, 1946), 54; IX (October, 1947), 54; X (April, 1948), 47;
XI (March, 1949), 51.

135. Ibid., VI (January, 1944), 43; VII (April, 1945), 30; VII (August,
1945), 47; Theatre Arts, XXIX (October, 1945), 549. The first contest distributed
$1020 in prizes, the second $1500 plus promises by colleges of postwar fellow-
ships, and the third, $1500. In the second contest, the largest, 697 scripts were
submitted.

136. Lee Norvelle, "NTC Touring Company," Bulletin, IX (April, 1947), 64;
IX (October, 1947), 33; X (November, 1948), 75.

137. Theatre Arts, XXXI (October, 1947), 10; Bulletin, IX (April, 1947), 21;
Mary Morris, "Tryout Studio in New York/' X (July, 1948), 46,

138. Evans, passim.

139. This viewpoint is generally confirmed by a personal letter from Lee
Norvelle (June 1, 1950), who, with Mabie, attended preliminary meetings
preceding the public organizational meetings.

140. 1936 Constitution of AETA.

NATIONAL THEATRE ORGANIZATIONS 671

141. Personal letters from Evans, June 4, 1951, from Barclay Leathern, June 1,
1950, and from Wallace A. Goates, August 10, 1953.

142. "Minutes of Meetings, December 30, 1936."

143. "Minutes of Second Meeting of December 30, 1936." Minutes of Annual
Business Meetings, passim, give the subsequent officers: Presidents, Leathern
(1938), NorveUe (1939), Evans (1940), Marian L. Stebbins (1941), James H.
Parke (1942), C. R. Kase (acting after Parke entered military service, and con-
tinuing into 1943 since there was no business meeting at which to elect new
officers, and with Stebbins serving as presiding officer of the 1943 meeting of
the Advisory Council, since Kase m turn had entered military service), Herschel
Bricker (1944, and continuing in 1945 because of no business meeting for
election), Valentine Wmdt (1946, after serving for Bricker when he entered the
Army Education Program), Kase (1947), H. Darkes Albright (1948), Hubert
C. Heffner (1949), Monroe Lippman (1950), Lee Mitchell (1951), William P.
Halstead (1952), Barnard Hewitt (1953). Vice-Presidents: Gertrude Johnson
(1938), Evans (1939), Stebbins (1940), C. Lowell Lees (1941), Kase (1942),
Windt (1944 and part of 1945), Kase, (1946), Albright (1947), Heffner (1948),
Lippman (1949), Mitchell (1950), Halstead (1951), Hewitt (1952), Horace
Robinson (1953). Administrative Vice-Presidents: Jack Morrison (1950-1953),
Lillian Voorhees (1954-1955). Executive Secretaries: Wmbigler (1937-1939),
John W. Hulburt (1940-1946, two terms and an extra year), Halstead (1947-
1949), Norman Philbrick (1950-1952), Mouzon Law (1953-1955).

144. "Minutes of Business Meeting, December 29, 1941. "

145. "By-Laws" (1945), Sec. 4(b). Other changes include transfer of re-
sponsibility for the convention program from President to Vice-President.

146. "Minutes of Business Meeting, December 30, 1947."

147. "Minutes of Business Meeting, December 29, 1949," The Administrative
Vice-President is elected by the Advisory Council for a two-year term; he is not
in the automatic succession to presidency. His chief function is to administer the
Work-Projects (see fn. 167).

148. Membership figures compiled from Annual Financial Statements.

149. Originally ("By-Law No. 1") dues for regular membership were $3.50
($1.00 for those with NATS membership) and for sustaining members, $10.00.
Beginning with 1942, dues for regular members rose to $2.50 for all; with 1948,
to $3.50; with 1952, to $4.50. Also in 1952, sustaining membership rose to $12.50.
(See "Minutes of Business Meeting, December 29, 1941; December 30, 1947;
December 29, 1950; December 30, 1952." )

150. Total expenditures suggest the extent of activities. For example, annual
Financial Statements show $311.06 expended in 1944 and $10,728.14 in 1950.
Small deficits existed 1948-1950, though a stock of publications on hand partially
balanced them.

151. Hubert C. Heffner, "President's Report," Educational Theatre Journal,
II (March, 1950), 72; "Minutes of Advisory Council Meetings 1949, 1950, 1951";
"Report of International Liaison and ITI Project, 1951."

152. The numbering of annual conventions became confused by variation in
terminology and by numbering them in a fixed relationship to SAA conventions.
"Minutes of AETA Advisory Council, December 26-29, 1951" officially numbered
its conventions as follows: (1) N. Y., 1937; (2) Cleveland, 1938; (3) Chicago,
1939; (4) Washington, 1940; (5) Detroit, 1941; (6) N. Y., 1943; (7) Columbus,
1945; (8) Chicago, 1946; (9) Salt Lake City, 1947; (10) Washington, 1948;,
(11) Chicago, 1949; (12) N. Y., 1950; (13) Chicago, 1951; (14) Cincinnati,
1952. Convention programs bear other numbers.

153. Convention Programs, 1947-1951.

154. "Minutes of Advisory Council, December 27-30, 1950."

155. Personal letter from Winifred Ward, May 30, 1952.

156. Pre-Convention Memo, December 6-9, 1950 from Ex. Sec. Philbrick: The
Seattle Conference was originally designated as the "first" AETA conference. In

672 THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

1950 this was recognized as misleading, so the conferences were renumbered:
(1) Evanston, 1945; (2) Seattle, 1946; (3) Bloomington, Ind., meeting with
NTS, 1947; (4) Denver, 1948; (5) N. Y., sponsored by ANTA, 1949, (6) Min-
neapolis 1950, with a U. of Minnesota Workshop for 150 of the 400 delegates
preceding the conference; (7) L. A., 1951, with a UCLA Workshop; (8) Madison,
with a U of Wisconsin Workshop, 1952; (9) Garden City, N. Y., with an Adelphi
College Workshop, 1953.

157. "Minutes of Advisory Council, December 27-30, 1950, December 28-31,

1952."

158. Memo from Heffner to AETA Committee on Publications, May 14, 1940,
and letter of same date to Evans (in Heffner files). Hefner's full files on this
are not available. He loaned them to Richard Ceough and then went into mili-
tary service. Ceough died during this period, and the files have not been located.

159. Personal letter from Heffner, June 7, 1950. ^

160. "Minutes of Advisory Council Meetings, December 28-31, 1941. Heffner
reported to the Council that there were enough promises of subscriptions to make
possible the projected Theatre Quarterly with the Theatre Library Association.
^Minutes of Advisory Council Meeting, December 27, 1943": it was voted to
give "every support to Theatre Annual" At the death of Ceough in January, 1947,
Theatre Annual was taken over by Blanche A. Corin as publisher, with William
Van Lennep as editor.

161. Published in May, 1943. Personal letter from Blanche A. Corin, May 26,
1952.

162. "Minutes of Advisory Council Meetings, December 28-31, 1941." Savage,
Bricker, Lippman, Windt, and Foster Harmon, with Kase as chairman, were
appointed a committee to edit issues in turn. Single editorship began in 1944:
Windt (1944-1945), Hewitt (1946-1948), David W. Thompson (1949). ^

163. "Minutes of Advisory Council Meetings, December 27-30, 1948."

164. Albright was Assoc. Ed. and Winship, Mng. Ed. (all 1949-51). Mouzon
Law replaced Winship when he reentered military service. Albright was elected
Editor, 1952-1954.

165. "Editor's Foreword," ETJ, I (October, 1949), 1.

166. "Minutes of Advisory Council Meetings, December 27, 1938."

167. Norman Philbrick, "Notes from the Meetings of the Advisory Council,"
ETJ, V (March, 1953), pp. 69-70: Audio Visual Aids, Bibliography, Board of
Research, College Curriculum, Conferences, Contests and Festivals, Graduate
Project, Counseling, International Liaison and ITI, Junior and City College, Manu-
script Play Project, Motion Pictures, Opera, Production Lists, Badio, Secondary
Schools, Stage Movement, Summer Theatre, Teacher Training, Television, The-
atre and Adult Education, Theatre Architecture, Touring, Veterans Administra-
tion Hospital.

168. The Bulletin, NASSP, XXXIII, No. 166, 182 pages.

169. The Educational Theatre in Adult Education, Bobert Card, ed. (Washing-
ton, Division of Adult Education Service of NEA, 1951).

170. S,M, XVI (November, 1949), 124 pages.

171. Personal letter from Albright, June 24, 1952.

172. "Minutes of Advisory Council Meetings, December 26-29, 1951."

173. Sister Mary Xavier Coens, B.V.M., "The Origin and Development of the
Catholic Theatre Conference, 1937-1949," unpublished M.A. thesis, Catholic U.,
1951, p. 1.

174. Emmet Lavery, "The Catholic Theatre: New Thoughts on an Old
Dream," America, LVI (December 5, 1936), 197-199.

175. Coens, p. 3.

176. Ibid., p. 4. Unaware of the simultaneous activity for the Washington con-
vention, Lavery joined Dinneen and Costello in laying plans for the Chicago
meeting. In a letter to Lavery (January 22, 1937), Nagle suggested subordinating
the Chicago meeting to the Washington one, pointing out, **. . . geographical ad-

NATIONAL THEATRE ORGANIZATIONS 673

vantages can not compensate for the interest of the Hierarchy in the activities of
their Catholic University." Since the Chicago group did not deem the subordinating
advisable, both meetings were held, as consecutive ones of the same organization.

177. Euphemia Van Rensselaer Wyatt, "A National Catholic Theatre/' Catho-
lic World, CVL (September, 1937), 723. Coens (p. 50) indicates that member-
ship grew from 1937 to 1949, to 524, over 300 of these being producing groups,
thus bringing the estimated number of participants to approximately 6000.
Canada, New South Wales, Australia, England and thirty-nine states sent con-
vention delegates. High-school unit memberships grew from 4 in 1941 to 202 in
1950.

178. Coens, pp. 8, 9. Other temporary officers included Rev. John H. Mahoney
and Father Dinneen, vice-chairmen; E. Francis McDevitt, secretary-treasurer. A
noteworthy resolution passed by delegates to this meeting was that which ex-
pressed appreciation to the WPA Federal Theatre Project for its compilation of a
list of Catholic plays.

179. Coens (pp. 54-55) lists all the officers, 1937-1951. Ensuing presidents
include Dinneen, Lavery, Costello, Rev. James J. Donahue, Rev. Karl Schroeder,
Joseph F. Rice, Walter Bamberger, and Theresa M. Cuny.

180. Ibid., p. 10. The office was moved to 316 W. 57th St., N. Y. in 1941 and
to 120 Madison Ave. in 1949. In 1952 it was located at 22 Park Place, and in
1953 at Cudahy Library, Loyola University, Chicago.

181. Ibid., pp. 22-23. The same cause limited attendance at the 1945 conven-
tion to the Executive Board and members from the Chicago area.

182. Ibid., p. 25. The word "National" was regarded as too restrictive in
view of international membership. Another objection lay in the possibility of
confusion with NTC.

183. Ibid., p. 50.

184. Ibid., pp. 33-34, 50.

185. Ibid., pp. 18, 29-30; personal letter from Coens, May 20, 1952. Helen
Purcell, who had given generously of her time to the secretaryship, assumed full-
time capacity and continued until 1947, at which time Margaret Passmore took
over. Townley Brooks replaced Passmore from August, 1951, to April, 1952, at
which time Passmore resumed her duties as Secretary protem. In August, 1952,
Patricia Bradley became secretary-treasurer.

186. Coens (pp. 64-67) includes the entire constitution.

187. Ibid., p. 8.

188. Ibid., p. 12.

189. Ibid., p. 10. Dinneen was responsible for the inclusion of the Motion
Picture Committee as one of the permanent committees.

190. Ibid., p. 11, quoted from "Statement by the President," Bulletin, I
(November, 1937), 4.

191. Wyatt, "The National Catholic Theatre Conference," Catholic World,
CLIX (September, 1944), 552. In an earlier article, CLV (August, 1942), 601,
Mrs. Wyatt credits Purcell, the first editor, with Production Calendars success.

192. Personal letter from Wyatt, June 13, 1952.

193. Coens, pp. 39-41.

194. Ibid., pp. 44-45.

195. Ibid., pp. 25, 46, corrected by letter from Wyatt.

196. The Drama League and ANTA have contributed to the growth of chil-
dren's theatre.

197. TLA, too, has exerted influence in this field by devoting itself to specific
research projects.

198. ANTA has assumed responsibility for the American Centre of the Inter-
national Theatre Institute.

199. An opportunity for representation exists, too, at the National Theatre
Assemblies called by ANTA.

INDEX

Acting: college courses in, 584-86; pro-
fessional training for, 620-31

Adams, Fred Winslow, 212

Adams, Henry, 165

Adams, John Quincy, 3, 57, 60, 70,
581; his Lectures on Rhetoric
Oratory, 130, 155-56; on homiletics,^
145; on delivery of sermons, 148

Addison, Joseph, 67

Agricola, Rudolphus, 21

Alcuin: his works, 6-7; his De Rhetor-
ica, 7-8, 14

Alger, William Rounseville, 203, 207,
210; his career, 212; study under
Gustave Delsarte, 213; teacher of
Delsartism, 213

Alpha Psi Omega, 644-46

Alvienne, Claude M. and Neva: Alvi-
enne Academy, 621

American Academy of Dramatic Arts,
560, 568, 618; history of, 621; cur-
riculum of, 631-32

American Academy of Speech Correc-
tion, founding of, 507-08, 516n83,
517n85, n89; journals of, 509; pur-
pose of, 517n92

The American Educational Theatre As-
sociation, 611, 642, 656-60

The American Instructor, 56

American National Theatre and Acad-
emy, 611, 642

American Philological Association, 335

American School for the Deaf, 397

American School of Play writing, 622

American Society for the Study of
Speech Disorders, 508

American Speech, 340

American Speech and Hearing Associa-
tion 349

Ames, Nathaniel, 524, 528

Aphthonius: his Progymnasmata, 24,
25

Appia, Adolphe, 637

Aristotle, 7, 21, 36, 37, 39, 40, 48, 53,
54, 86, 92, 93, 129, 130, 131, 140,
141, 142, 143
naud, Angelique, 206; 215
"'Austin, Rev. Gilbert, 115, 162, 179,
187, 426; his Chironomia, 117-18,

139, 183

Alfed, 4!Dr

Babcock, Maud May, 493, 543, 589

Bacon, Francis: his Advancement of
Learning, 33, 41, 82, 88, 95, 141,
221

Baconian pattern of rhetoric, 5, 33-40
passim

Baker, George Pierce, 171, 263, 440,
471, 474, 484, 544, 573, 574, 598,
630; his career, 427-30; his Princi-
ples of Argumentation, 428; his work
in drama, 429

Balbus de Janua, 9, 19

Barber, James, 179

Barber, John, 232

Barber, Jonathan, 183, 184, 232; his
publications, 185, his methods of
teaching, 185-86

Barbour, Jonathan, 162, 163; See Bar-
ber, Jonathan

Baright, Anna: her career, 306

Barrett, Lawrence, 556

Barrows, Mabel Hay, 600

Barrows, Sarah T., 337

Barth, E., 363

Bartlett, Floyd, 605

Barton, John: his Art of Rhetorick
Concisely and Compleatly Handled,
33

Bassett, Lee Emerson, 505, 579

Bayly, Anselm, 119

Bede, the Venerable: his Liber de
Schematibus et Tropis, 16-18, 20,
23, 391

675

676

INDEX

Beecher, Henry Ward, 3, 144, 208

Beecher, Lyman, 156, 157, 161

Behnke, Emit, 194

Belasco, David, 561, 565

Bell, Alexander, 402

Bell, Alexander Graham, 172, 193, 194,
408, 418n75; as teacher of the deaf,
371, 402

Bell, Alexander Melville, 118, 194, 402;
his Visible Speech, 334, 371

Belles lettres, 157, 164

Bell Telephone Laboratories: research
program by, 357; research on per-
ception of speech, 364

Benefit performances, post-Civil War
colleges, 538-39

Ben Greet players, 605

Benton, W. E., 356

Bessie V. Hicks School of Dramatic
Arts, 622

Beveridge, Albert, 141

Bickford, Charles, 202

Bingham, Caleb, 330; his Columbian
Orator, 282

Blackwell, Anthony: his Introduction
tp the Classics, 55

WSkJEfag^.54, 55, 129, 130, 131, 133,
138, 140, 141, 153, 156, 167, 283, 450,
521; his Lectures on Rhetoric and
Belles Lettres, 81, 82-83; his influ-
ence on Knox, 130; his Lectures
T^jflip^ fILI>? of ..Agigrica, 158-59

Blanchard, trecieric, 493 ™~""*~

Blanton, Smiley, 412, 440, 457

Blondel, A., 358

Blood, Mary: her school, 305; her Psy-
chological Development of Expres-
sion, 315; See Columbia School of
Oratory

Blount, Thomas: his Academie of Elo-
quence, 22

Boleslavsky, Richard, 623; his Labo-
ratory Theatre School, 633

Bonnell, John: his Manual of the Art
of Prose Composition, 139

Bonstelle, Jessie, 623

Booth, Edwin; 180, 554

Borchers, Gladys L., 482

Boston College of Oratory, 625

Boston University School of Oratory,
302

Boucicault, Sim, 634

Bowman, John A., 622

Boyd, James R,: his Elements of Rhe-
toric and Literary Criticism, 135

Brackenridge, Hugh, 529, 530, 531,
532

Bradbury, J, H., 538

Braidwood, John, 392, 396

Broadus, John A., 147, 148

Brown, Gilmor, 628

Brown, Lenox, 194

Brown, Moses True, 311

Bruhn, Martha E., 409

Bryan, William Jennings, 171, 256,

270, 296, 425
Bryant, William, 232
Buchanan's British Grammar, 329
Buckingham, Elizabeth, 579
Bullokar, William, 330

Burgh, James, 179; his Art of Speaking,

114

Burness, Philip, 608
Burr, Aaron (President of the College

of New Jersey), 523
Burton, Rev., his District School as It

Was, 280
Butler, Charles: his Rhetoricae Libri

Duo,. 32; his Oratoria Libri Duo, 32
Byron King School of Oratory, 198

Cald)ssell, Merntt, 179

£>dfnpbell, George, 54, 81, 83, 129, 130,
131, 133, 140, 167, 434; his Philos-
ophy of Rhetoric and his Lectures on
Systematic Theology and Pulpit Elo-
81^§2

Carn5gteTEstitute of Technology (De-
partment of Drama), 630; curricu-
lum of, 632

Carpenter, Frederic Ives, 11

Catholic Theatre Conference, 661-63

Channing, Edward T,, 131, 138, 153;
on the nature of rhetoric, 133; his
distrust of models, 134; his view of
the orator, 134

Channing, William E., 145, 158; on
homiletlc style, 146; comment on his
teaching, 160

Cheney, Sheldon: his New Movement
in the Theatre, 605

Chesterfield, Lord, 106

Child, Francis, Jr., 166, 451

Cicero, 16, 19, 21, 36, 37, 53, 54, 80,
81, 939 94, 97, 129, 130, 131, 134,
141, 143, 146; his Brutus, 5, 13; his
De Inventione, 5, 8, 12, 13, 40; his
De Oratore, 5, 7, 8, 13, 54, 156,
159, 168; his De Partitione Oratoria,
5, 13; his Orator, 5, 8; his Topics, 7,
12, See Ciceronian pattern of rheto-

INDEX

677

Ciceronian pattern of rhetoric, 4, 18,
20, 54; five procedures of Invention,
Disposition, Style, Memory and De-
livery, 5-16 passim; summarized by
Alcuin, 7-8; summarized by Victor,
8; poetry a manifestation of 8, 9-10,
attitude of Bacon towards, 35
Clark, Barrett, 598
Clark, Solomon Henry: his career, 430-

32, his tenets of elocution, 431-32
Clarke, John: his Formulae Oratoriae,
28; his Transitionum Rhetoriarum
Formulae, 28
Clarke School for the Deaf, 371, 372,

402, 405, 416n46
Classical tradition of rhetoric, 167

456-57

Clerc, Laurent, 397
Cleveland Playhouse, 628
Clure, Wilford O., 585
Cobb, Lyman, 233
Coburn, Charles, 597
College Dramatics: laboratory method

of instruction, 573-74; 580-84
Columbia School of Expression, 181,

198

Columbia School of Oratory; history
of, 305-06; principles of, 307-10,
315; aims and methods of, 321-22;
See Blood, Mary; See Riley, Ida
Commencement dialogues as drama,

530

Comstock, Andrew, 180, 232, 330; his
Phonology, 334; his Phonetic Maga-
zine, 334
Cone, Adelia, 595

Conversation: in secondary schools,
288, 290; treatment by Shoemaker,
310

Cope, E. M., 167
Copleston, Edward, 83
Coquelin, Constant, 557
Corbett, Theodore, 620
Cornish, Nellie, 628-29
Cornish School, 628-29
Corson, C. A., 544
Corson, Hiram, 451
Coulter, Ellis M.: his College Life in

the Old South, 247
Coulton, Thomas, 172
Cox, Leonard, 53; his Arte or Crafte of

Rhethoryke, 11-13
Craig, Gordon, 605, 637
Crandall, Irving B,, 356
Crisp, W. H., 555
Crowne, John, 521
Cull, Richard, 120, 233

Curriculum in speaking: at Rhode Is-
land, 63; at Princeton, 63; at William
and Mary, 63; at Harvard, 63-4;
changes after 1785, 63; from 1800-
1825, 156-61, from 1825-1850, 161-
65; from 1850-1875, 165-68; from
1875-1900, 168-72; gives way to lit-
erature, 165-66

Curricula of actor-training schools,
565-68

Curry, Samuel Silas, 172, 194, 209,
213, 214, 578, 580, 583, 584, 586,
592, 624, 625, 635, 636; his School
of Expression, 193; his career, 193,
306; his theory of elocution, 194-97;
criticism of Rush, 194-95; criticism
of Whately, 195; criticism of Del-
sarte, 195-96; resemblance to Porter,
196, sources of ideas, 315-16; The
Province of Expression, 316; Mind
and Voice, 316; his theory of actor-
training, 566-67; See School of Ex-
pression

Curry College, 181; See Curry School
of Expression

Curry School of Expression, 562, 566;
See School of Expression

Cushman, Charlotte, 555

Daggy, Maynard, 579

Daly, Augustin, 555, 620

Damon, Ruth, 609

Dauphin School of Arts, 622

Davidson, Thomas, 602

Davidson, William M., 602

Davis, Gordon, 589

Davis, L. E., 606

Day, Angel: his English Secretorie, 22,
23, 26

Day, Henry N., 138, 167; his Elements
of the Art of Rhetoric, 136-38; on
invention, 136; on style, 137

Deaf, teaching the: graphic symbols
needed, 371-72; visible speech, 372-
78 passim; Whipple Natural Alpha-
bet, 378-80; early schools for, 390-
93 passim; first public schools, 396-
97; methods of, 397-98; effect of
compulsory schooling on, 400-01; de-
velopment of, 403-06; lip reading in,
408-09

Debate: subjects for, 157, 248, 261;
complaints about, 161; contests at
Williams, 169; Perry, coach of, 169;
courses in argument, 170-71; inter-
society, 245; intercollegiate literary

678

INDEX

contests related to, 245-46; 19th cen-
tury collegiate procedure in, 246-48;
rise of intercollegiate, 259-260, 275-
nl, 458, 504-05, judging of, 261-62,
270-71, 505; evolution of "rebuttal",
262-63; popularity of, 263-64, origin
of coaching of, 264, 266, 275n21;
leagues for, 264-65; quality of, 266-
67; societies honoring, 268; trips for,
269; women in, 269-70; English style
of, 271; new forms of, 272-74; in
secondary schools, 294, 472, 477,
485n23 485n25, 505-06; Hill, Bryan,
and Norris on, 296; Baker on, 428;
controversy on, 440-1 passim

Debating Societies, at colonial colleges,
64, 69; impromptu speaking in, 77-
78; condemned by Whately, 84

DeBerdt, Dennys, 524

Declamation: conducted by Channing,
160; specified in laws of Illinois Col-
lege, 164-65; at Hamilton, 168; at
Amherst, 179; at Yale, 179, contests,
189; in secondary schools, 284, 289,
290, 291

Delaumosne, I/ Abbe: his Pratique de
If Art Oratoire de Delsarte, 214

Delivery: in Ciceronian pattern of rhet-
oric, 5-16 passim; in Ramistic pat-
tern of rhetoric, 28-33 passim, 49; in
Baconian pattern of rhetoric, 33-40
passim; Vossius on, 51; of orations
at King's, 74; of orations at Phila-
delphia, 75; Ward, Campbell, Blair,
Priestley, Whately on, 97-101; kinds
of, 100-01; in homiletics, 147-48; in
19th century America, 163; emphasis
on in 19th century America, 198;
Delsarte's system of, 204-06; prin-
ciples of, in private schools, 308-09

Delsarte, Francois, 156, 171, 194, 311,
314, 426, 558, 584, 619, 624, 636, 637;
his system related to physical cul-
ture, 172, 202-03, 209-10, criticized
by Curry, 195-96; his career, 203-04;
his system, 204-06; his "Cours d'Es-
thetic Appliqu6e, 206; ftis ' pupils,
206; publications on, 215-16, 217-
n!3; his influence on Powers, 320;
See Delsartism

Delsartism: in private schools, 307-09;
and actor training, 564; See Delsarte,
Frangois

Delta Psi Omega, 647

Delta Sigma Rho, 268, 509

De Mille, James: his Elements of Rhet-
oric, 142

Demosthenes, 97, 134, 141

Department of Speech: at Michigan,
425; at Cornell, 444n5; degrees given
by? 444n6; speech under English de-
partments, 449-53; reasons for, 454-
59; establishment of, 460-64; curric-
ular developments in, 464-67

Desmond, Mae, 624

Detroit Civic Theatre, 623

Dewey, John, 400, 417n61

Dickinson, Thomas, 573, 574, 587, 590,
607

Dictionaries: authors of, 328-29, use of
IPA symbols in, 337-38

Discussion: appearance in secondary
schools, 286

Disposition: in Ciceronian pattern of
rhetoric, 5-16 passim; in Formulary
pattern of rhetoric, 23-28 passim; in
Ramistic pattern of rhetoric, 28-33
passim; in Baconian pattern of rhet-
oric, 33-40 passim; Vossius on, 51;
Ward, Blair, Campbell, Whately,
Priestley on, 92-93; Emerson on, 140;
in homiletics, 146

Disputation: complaints about, 161; in
18th century, 170; forensic, 243-44,
extempore, 244-45, 258nl5

Dodsley, Robert: his Preceptor, 55

Dolman, John, 596

Donatus, Aelius, 17

Dorey, J. Milnor, 595-96

Dowling, John, 147

Drama League of America, 642

Dramatics in colleges: opposition to in
18th century, 521-24; an academic
exercise, 525-26; effect of evangelism
on, 533-34; clubs for, 537; musical
burlesque as, 539-40; as elocutionary
exercise, 543; in women's colleges,
544; lectures on, 545

Dramatics in high schools: extent of,
472-73; early objectives of, 595-97;
early repertories, 597-98; early atti-
tudes towards, 600-03; accredited
courses in, 603-05; early sources for,
605-09; books used in, 607; college
courses in, 608; early production
problems in, 609-10; status of, to-
day, 610-12

Dramatic interpretation: college
courses in, 575-80 passim

Drew, John, 555

Drumrnond, Alexander M., 461, 573,
574, 606; syllabus for secondary
schools, 475-76, 503

Du Bos, Abbe, 90

INDEX

679

Duddell, W. D. B., 358

Dugard, William; his Rhetorices Ele-

menta, 50

Dunster (President of Harvard), 68
Durand, G. H., 582
Dwight, Timothy, 148, 153, 156, 523,

532

Eastern Public Speaking Conference,
423, 433

Eaton, Walter Prichard, 650

Edison, Thomas, 357

Edmonds, S. Randolph, 648-49

Educational Dramatic League, 596

Educational Theatre Journal, 659

Edwards, Justin, 146

Eijkmann, L. P. H., 363

Electronic revolution, 358

Elementary schools: reading in, 280-
81; speech teachers in, 291

Ellis, A. J., 332; his Alphabet of Na-
ture, 334; his Essentials of Phonetics,
334

Elocution: the "natural" school of,
56, 309, 124n22; the "mechanical"
school of, 56, 98, 124n22, 195, 233-
34, 280-81; result of 18th century
forces, 105-08, 131, 161-62; defini-
tion of, 108, influence of science on,
109-10; divisions of, 110-11; and
style, 112, 113; and elocution, 112;
and exornation, 112; and pronuncia-
tion, 112-13; investigative treatises on,
113-19; clerical manuals on, 119-20;
school manuals on, 120-21; home
manuals on, 121-22; reasoned text-
books on, 122; separation of, from
rhetorical training, 162; in the cur-
riculum, 166, 452, itinerant teachers
of, 171, 180, 188; 19th century text-
books on, 179; in elementary schools,
180, 281; schools of, 181, beliefs of
19th century teachers on, 198-200;
in secondary schools, 289-90, 294,
295; Shoemaker on, 307-12 passim;
C. W. Emerson on, 312-14; Blood
and Riley on, 315; Curry on, 315-17;
Powers on, 317-20; relation of, to
phonetics, 328-31 passim; decline of,
418n89; 491-92; Trueblood on, 426;
Clark on, 431; school programs of,
533

Elphinston, James, 330

Emerson, Charles Wesley, 624, 635,
636; his career, 304; his Evolution
of Expression, 312; his theory, 313-

14; his other publications, 314; his
influence on Blood and Riley, 315;
See Emerson College [of Oratory]

Emerson, Oliver Farrar: his Ithaca Dia-
lect, 336; his History of the English
Language, 336

Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 141, 144; his
"Eloquence," 139; on audience an-
alysis, 139-40

Emerson College of Oratory, 181, 198,
625; history of, 304-05; principles of,
307-10, 312-14; aims and methods
of, 321-22; See Emerson, Charles
Wesley

Emmons, Nathaniel F., 145

Emotional proof: Ward, Blair, Camp-
bell, Whately, Priestley on, 90-92

Empire Theatre Dramatic School, 566

English Round Table, 497

Epee, Abbe Charles Michel de T, 392,
397

Erasmus, 13, 21; Apophthegmata., 24

Ethical proof: Ward, Blair, Campbell,
Whately, Priestley on, 92

Evans, Dina Rees, 597, 601-02, 609

Evans, Edwin, 583

Evans, Florence, 583

Ewald, J. R., 360

Experimental phonetics: scope of, 349-
50; acoustical theories of, 350-57; in-
harmonic theory, 353; harmonic the-
ory, 353-54; tools of acoustical pho-
netics, 357-58; physiological pho-
netics, 359-64; models of larynx, 359-
60; laryngeal photography, 360-62;
palatography, 362-63, psychophysi-
cal phonetics, 364-65; See Phonetics

Eytinge, Rose, 622

Fage, Robert, 32

Falk, Sawyer, 653

Farnaby, Thomas, 39, 51; his Index
Rhetoricus, 16, 28, 51, 58n24

Fenner, Dudley: his Artes of Logike
and Rhetorike, 31

Ferrein, Anton,- 33$

Figures of speech: See Tropes

Finlay-Johnson, Harriett, 599

Fiske, Minnie Maddern, 556

Fletcher's Speech and Hearing, 357

Floyd, Sarah Trainer, 606

Foreign Language plays: in 19th cen-
tury colleges, 540-43

Formulary pattern of rhetoric, 4; ex-
plained, 23-28; Bacon's criticism of,
37

680

INDEX

Forrest, Edwin, 180
47 Workshop, 429, 573, 574
Foster, WiUiam Trufant, 428, 440
Fourier analysis, 356
Fowle, William B., 281, 282
Francke, Kuno, 545
Frank, Maude, 599
Frankenberger, David, 543
Franklin, BenjaminJ^fifir^3Q
fraunce, Abraham: his Arcadian Rhet?
g^ 31, his Latoiers

Frink, Henry, 572

Froebel, Friedrich, 400

Frohman, Charles, 560

Frohman, Gustave, 621

Fry, Emma Sheridan, 599

Fulton, Robert L, 163, 171, 425, 492,

494, 503
Funk, Isaac; his Standard Dictionary,

335

Gager, William, 522

Gallaudet, Edward Miner, 404

Gallaudet, Thomas Hopkins, 396, 397,
416n41

Garcia, Manual: his theory of phona-
tion, 359

Garel, J, 361

Garnck, David: his technique of read-
ing the Liturgy, 120

Gates, Arthur L., 581, 582

Genung, John Franklin, 144, 425; his
Practical Elements of Rhetoric, 143

Geoffrey of Vinsauf, 9, 19; his Poetria
Nova, 8, 18; his Summa de Coloribus
Rhetoricis, 18

Geraldy, Mme. (daughter of Delsarte),
210

Gestalt psychology, 394

Gibbon, Thomas: his Rhetoric, 55

Gilder, Rosamond, 643

Gilmore, Joseph H.: his Outlines of
Rhetoric, 140

Glanvill, Joseph: his Essay Concerning
Preaching, 40

Glen, Irving M., 583

Gnesin, Maurice, 628

Godfrey, Thomas, 528, 532

Goldstein, Max, 412

Goodman, Mr. and Mrs. William O.,
628

Goodman Theatre, 628

Goodrich, Chauncey Allen, 129, 131,
138, 163; his criticism, 132; his treat-
ment of invention, style and delivery,

132-33; advocate of models, 134; his
Select British Eloquence, 143

Goodrich, Samuel G., 281

Gordon, Henry E., 509

Gough, Harry Bainbridge, 430

Grandgent, Charles H., 336

Gray, David, 540

Green, Francis, 395, 396

Greet, W. C., 341

Greville, Samuel, 531

Grunmach, E., 363

Guild, Thatcher, 581, 596, 606, 608

Gummere, Samuel, 232

Gustafson, Gilbert T., 609

Hackett, James H., 554

Hallam, Lewis, 527

Hamill, S. S, 171, 425

Hardy, C. D, 498

Harmonic analyzer, 358

Harper, William Rainey, 431

Harrington, William G., 583, 589

Harris, L. M., 590

Hartley, Mrs. Anne (Mrs. Gilbert), 618

Hartley, David, 85

Harvard, John: his library, 48, 49

Harvard College: books used at, 49, 55,
59n47; course of study at, 50; speak-
ing exercises at, 60, 72, election of
orators at, 73; the Boylston professor-
ship at, 130, 155

Hasty Pudding Club (Harvard), 165,
535-36, 539-40

Hawes* Pastime of Pleasure, 8, 9-11,
15, 36

Hawn, Henry Games, 491

Hedde, Wilhelmina G., 609

Heffner, Hubert C., 658, 659

Hegener, J., 361

Hemicke, Samuel, 392

Helmholtz, H. von, 354, 355

Henrici, O., 358

Henry Jewett School of Acting, 623

Hermann, L., 354, 356, 357

Hermogenes, 25

Herr, Charlotte, 610

Herts, Alice Minnie, 599

Hervey, George, 147; his System of
Christian Rhetoric, 145

Hewitt, Barnard, 659

Hicks, Mrs. Bessie V., 622

Hill, Adams Sherman: his Principles of
Rhetoric, 142

Hill, D. J., his Science of Rhetoric, 169

Hinkle, Rachel (Mrs. Shoemaker): her
Advanced Elocution, 311; her teach-

INDEX

681

ing, 311-12; See National School of
Elocution and Oratory

Hobbes, Thomas, 88, 90, 95, 101; his
Brief e of the AH of Rhetorique, 40

Holbrook, R. T., 363

Holders, William: his Elements of
Speech, 53, 58n31

Holmes, Garnet, 598

Holt, Charles M., 495

Homiletics: defined by Shedd, K&
persuasion the goal of, 145; disposi-
tion in, 146, style in, 146-7, illus-
trative preaching, 147; delivery in,
147-48; qualities of sermons, 157-58

Hope, Matthew Boyd: his Princeton
Textbook in Rhetoric, 138-39; influ-
enced by faculty psychology, 138

Hopkins, Mark, 164

Hoppin, James M., 146

Horace Mann School, 405

Home, Thomas: his Guide to the Tem-
ple of Wisdom., 28

Hoskins, John, 22

Howard, Bronson, 545, 557, 566

Howells, William Dean, 555

Hewlett, John Henry, 120

Hewlett, Mariam, 623

Hull, Cordell, 296

Hume, David, 82, 87, 88, 90, 95, 101

Inter-Collegiate Dramatic Association,
648

International Congresses of Phonetic
Sciences: Proceedings, 340

Invention: in Ciceronian pattern of
rhetoric, 5-16 passim; in 'Formulary
pattern of rhetoric, 23-28 passim; in
Rarnistic pattern of rhetoric, 28-33
passim; in Baconian pattern of rhet-
oric, 33-40 passim; Vossius on, 51;
Blair, Campbell, Ward, Priestley on,
85-92; Theremin on, 136; Day on,
136-37; Genung on, 143; See Emo-
tional proof; See Ethical Proof; See
Logical Proof

Irving, Henry, 545

Isaacs, Edith J. R., 643, 650-51

Isidore of Seville: his Etymologiae, 17,
18

Jewett, Mr. and Mrs. Henry, 623

John of Garland: his Exempla Hon-
estae Vitae, 18

John of Salisbury, 18

Johnson, Gertiude, 573, 574, 578, 644

Johnson, J. J., 451

Johnson, Samuel, 52, 55; his Diction-
ary, 327

Jones, Daniel, 338; intonation curves,
339

Jonson, Ben: his Timber, 22

Junior College Players, 647

Kames, Lord [Henry Home]: his Ele-
ments of Criticism, 55, 82

Kane, Whitford, 628

Kay, Wilbur Jones, 433

Kean, Edmund, 554

Keckermann, Bartholemew: his Sys-
tema Logicae, 243

Kempelen, Wolfgang Ritter von: his
speaking machine, 352

Kenny, William Howland, 625

Kenyon, John S.: with Knott, 337-38;
his American Pronunciation, 338

Keppie, Elizabeth F., 609

Kidder, Daniel P., 146, 149

Kmgsley, Norman W., 363

Kirkland, John, 145, 157

Knox, Samuel: his Compendious Sys-
tem of Rhetoric, 13D-31

Koch, Frederick, H., 430, 573, 574,
606, 608

Koenig, Rudolph, 357

Krapp, George Philip: his Pronuncia-
tion, 339, his English Language in
America, 339

Kratzenstein, C. G., 359; his speaking
machine, 352

Kurath, Hans: on linguistic atlas, 343;
his Word Geography of the Eastern
United States, 343

Kymographic tracings, 358

James, William, 196, 586

Jamieson's Grammar of Rhetoric and

Polite Literature, 131
Jefferson, Joseph, 545, 554, 556

Laboratory Theatre School, 623, 633

Lacey, W. B., 233

Laryngeal camera, 360-61

Latham, Azubah, 598

Lavery, Emmet, 661

Lawson, John, 434

Lee, Duncan Campbell, 461

Lee, Guy Carleton: his Principles of
Public Speaking, 144

Leigh, Edwin: his Pronouncing Or-
thography, 334

682

INDEX

Leland Powers School of the Spoken
Word: 198; history of, 306-07; prin-
ciples of, 307-10, 317-20; aims and
methods of, 321-22, 626-27; See
Powers, Leland

Lewisohn, Alice and Irene, 629

Linacre, Thomas, 21

Lindsay, Vachel/431

Linguistic Atlas, 340, 343

Literary societies: at colonial colleges,
64, 69; at Hamilton, 168; rise of, in
north and south, 239-40; rise of, in
the west, 241-42; loss of popularity
of, 254, 458; support of debate by,
264; dramatic production by, 256-29
passim; at Yale, Harvard, Princeton,
Dartmouth, 526-29

Locke, John, 67, 82, 88, 95, 101, 278

Logan, Olive, 555

Logical proof: Blair, Campbell, Ward,
Whately, Priestley on, 86-90

Longley, Elias, 334

Lonch, Reinhard, 24

Lyceum Acting School, 559-61

Lyceum movement, 285, 289

Lydgate, John, 9: his Court of Sapi-
ence, 18-19

Lyon, C. E., 455

Mabie, E. C., 573, 574, 588, 589, 606

Macaulay, Lord, 141

McConnell, Frederic, 628

Maccowan, Kenneth, 573

McCullough, John, 555, 559

McDermott, E. E., 509

McFadden, Elizabeth, 606

McGuffey, William, 180, 288, 293

Mackay, F. F., 618, 621, 634

MacKaye, Percy, 598, 632, 633, 637

Mackaye, Steele, 171, 194, 203, 302,
545, 561, 619, 621, 624, 636-37; his
career, 207; his lectures on Delsarte,
207-08; as teacher of acting, 558-61

MacKaye, Mrs. Steele, 206, 210

Macpherson, John, 71, 74; his remarks
on forensic disputation, 73

Madison, James, 3

Mae Desmond School of the Theatre,
624

Mahoney, John H., 661

Major, Mrs. Clare Tree, 623-24

Malone, Kemp, 341

Mandeville, Henry, 460

Mann, Horace, 285, 417n60

Manometric capsule, 357

Martin, Frederic, 411, 412

Mason, John, 55, 119, 426; his An Es-
say on Elocution, 114

Mather, Cotton, 48, 521-22, 524

Mather, Increase, 50, 521

Mathews, Charles, 554

Matthews, Brander, 590

Maulsby, R. M., 544

Melanchthon: his Institutiones "Ethel-
oricae, 12, 13

Merkel, C. M., 360

Metfessel, Milton, 358

Mill, John Stuart, 87, 88

Miller, Daniel F.: his Rhetoric as an
Art of Persuasion, 141

Miller, D. C., 356, 358; his Science of
Musical Sounds, 355

Millet, F. D., 541

Milton, John, 67

Mirrour of the World, 11

Mitchell, Maggie, 556

Moderwell, Hiram K.: his Theatre of
Today, 605

Modjeska, Helena, 555, 557, 564

Monboddo, Lord, 116

Monroe, Lewis Baxter, 172, 193, 194,
203, 207, 302, 624, 625, 635; founder
of school, 211; indebted to Rush,
211; influenced by MacKaye, 212

Morris, Constance, 620

Moscow Art Theatre, 637

Mosellanus, Petrus, 21

Mowatt, Anna Cora, 180, 554, 555

Miiller, Johannes: his models of larynx,
359

Muller-Walle, Julius, 409

Mundy, Anthony: his Defence of Con-
traries, 26; literary rival of Piot, 27

Murdoch, James E,, 163, 167, 171, 180,
185, 425, 426, 618, 634-35; on elocu-
tion, 189-193 passim; his career, 189-
90, on vocal quality, 191-92

Murray, Lindley: his English Gram-
mar, 156, 330

Muyskens, J. H., 364

National Association of Academic
Teachers of Public Speaking, 473,
495; reasons for founding, 496-98,
501-02; founders of, 499-500; sup-
port of scholarship, 506, 5l5n78-82;
growth of, 506-07; See Speech Asso-
ciation of America

National Association of Dramatic and
Speech Arts, 649

National Association of Elocutionists,
407, 423, 433, 490

INDEX

683

National Association of Teachers of
Speech, 475, 641

National Collegiate Players, 644-46

National Council of Teachers of Eng-
lish, 497, 641

National Deaf-Mute College, 404

National Dramatic Conservatory, 621

National Forensic League, 473, 511-12

National School of Elocution and Ora-
tory: history of, 303-04; principles
of, 307-12 passim; aims and methods
of, 321-22; See Shoemaker, J. W.

National Speech Arts Association: See
National Association of Elocutionists

National Theatre Conference, 642, 650-
56

National Thespian Society, 473, 611,
646-47

Negro Inter-Collegiate Dramatic Asso-
ciation, 648

Neighborhood Playhouse School of the
Theatre, 629

Neumeyer, Charles von, 586

Newman, Samuel P., 164; his Prac-
tical System of Rhetoric, 131

New York School of Expression, 627

Nichols, Walter H., 605, 610

Nitchie, Edward B., 409

Norris, George W., 296

North, Erasmus D., 162

Northampton Chart System, 373; de-
scribed 380-86

Northern Oratorical League, 427

Oertel, M. J., 361

Ohm, George S.: his "law of tone

quality," 354-55
O'Lemert, Helen, 598
Olsen, Moroni, 627
O'Neill, J. M., 434, 455, 473, 498, 505,

574; his career, 440-42 passim; on

debate, 440-41
O'Neill, Raymond, 628
Open forum, 270-71
Oral and written style, 286, 501-02
Orr, Fred Wesley, 583
Oxford debate, 271-72

Padelford, Frederick, 582
Paget, R. A. S., 356
Paine, J. K., 541
Palatography, 363
Palmer, A. M., 620
Panconcelli-Calzia, C., 361
Paris Conservatoire, 557

Partridge, William O., 572

Pasadena Community Playhouse, 628

Passy, Paul: his DM Fonetic Titcer,
337

Paterson, William, 74, 79n42, 531

Patriotic exercises as drama, 529-530

Patterson, Charles H., 573, 582

Pattison, Thomas H,, 146, 148

Payne, B. Iden, 628

Payne, John Howard, 532

Peacham, Henry: his Garden of Elo-
quence, 21-22, 23, 41

Pearson, Paul M., 423, 430, 433

Pemble, William: his Enchiridion Ora-
torium, 16, 39

Perry, Bliss, 168, 451

Pestalozzi, Johann Heinrich, 278, 285,
395, 400

Phelps, Austin: his English Style in
Public Discourse, 147

Phi Alpha Tau, 643

Phi Beta, 643

Phi Beta Kappa, 239, early disputa-
tions, 244

Phi Eta Sigma, 643

Phillips, Wendell, 162, 185

Phillips School of Oratory, 181, 198

Phi Rho Pi, 510-11

Phonautograph, 357

Phonellegraph, 358

Phonemics: terminology and symboli-
zation, 344

Phonetics: Steele's musical symbols,
116; Bell's Visible Speech, 118-19;
Barber on, 184; Russel on, 187-88,
Murdoch on, 191; Rush on, 227-32
passim; teaching reading by, 286-87;
in elementary schools, 292; defined,
326; British diacritics, 327-32; pho-
notypy, 332-35; American philology,
35-37; IPA, 337-43 passim; authors
and publications, 338-43 passim; re-
cent linguistic geography, 343-44;
See Experimental phonetics

Phonodeik, 358

Phonograph, 357

Pi Epsilon Delta, 644

Pierce, Robert Morris: IPA dictionaries,
337

Pi Kappa Delta, 268, 510

Piot, Lazarus: his The Orator, 27; his
pseudonyms, 27; Declamation 95
known by Shakespeare, 27; literary
rival of Mundy, 27

Pitman, Benn: nis American Phonetic
Dictionary of the English Language,
332

684

Pitman, Isaac: collaboration with Ellis,

332

Pittenger, William: his Oratory Sacred
and Secular, 139

Plato, 39; his Phaedrus, 37; his Gor-
gias, 170

Play direction and production: college
courses in, 586-89

Plumstead, William, 528

Poag, Thomas E., 649

Poel, William, 605

Pope, Alexander, 67

Porter, Ebenezer, 131-33, 145, 147,
148, 162, 179, 196, 283, 330, 452;
his Rhetorical Grammar, 180; on elo-
cution, 180-84; his teaching, 183; his
publications, 184

Port Royal Art of Speaking, 53-54

The Port Royal Logic, 40

Pound, Louise, 341

Powers, Carol Hoyt, 626

Powers, Haven W., 626-27

Powers, Leland Todd, 198, 305, 618,
624 626, 635, 636; his career, 306;
his theory, 317-20; See Leland Pow-
ers School of the Spoken Word

Pratt, Llewellyn, 168

Prentiss, Henrietta, 337

Price, L. Guernsey, 540

Price, William T., 622

Prickett, Charles F., 628

f^5^^^^^!^^^^^^^"^^^ i

PriesHeyT™ To^e^nTTIs Course of Lec-j

— foMe&j}rjLG^^

PronunciationT ~$'ee&$titfvrr~~~~~'^

Public exercises in speaking: at Har-
vard, Yale, Rhode Island College,
Princeton, 60, 61, 62, 72

Juackenbos, G. P., his Advanced
Course of Composition and Rhetoric,
167

Quarterly Journal [of Speech], 500-01,
506

Ouintilian, 6, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 53, 54,
80, 81, 86, 87, 92, 94, 95, 97, 100,
101, 129, 130, 131, 134, 141, 159,

Rainolde, Richard: his Foundation of
Rhetorike, 24-26

Rainolds, John, 522

Ramistic pattern of rhetoric: 4, 28-33
passim, 48-51 passim, 66, 80; impor-
tance, 28, characteristics of Ramism,

29-30, philosophy of learning, 30-31;
translated by Fenner and Fraunce,
31; criticized by Bacon, 34; influ-
ence at Harvard, 40; see Ramus, Pet-
rus

Ramus, Petrus, 40, 66; his Dialec-
ticae Libri Duo, 15, 29, Bacon's re-
action to logic of, 37-38; popularity
of, in the colonies, 48-50; See Ra-
mistic pattern of rhetoric

Raudnitzky, Hans, 334

Raymond, George L.: his Orators
Manual, 140

Reddie, Archibald, 583, 589

Reid, Thomas, 87, 101, 133, 134

Reinhardt, Max, 605, 637

Rhae, Herbert E , 165

Rhetorica ad Herennium, 5, 7, 10, 13,
15, 16, 17, 40

Rhetorical training: at Harvard, 65-66,
78n25, at William and Mary, 66, 67;
at Yale, 66, 67; at Princeton, 66, 67,
68; at King's 67, 68; at Dartmouth,
68; at Rhode Island, 68; value of dis-
putation in, 70-73; value of oration
in, 73-76

Rhetorics of the scriptures, 52

Richardson, Alexander: his The Logi-
cians School-Master, 32-33, 50

Richardson, Colonel C. W., 413

Riddle, George, 541

Riley, Ida: her school, 305, her Psycho-
logical Development of Expression,
315; See Columbia School of Oratory

Ringwalt, Curtis, 259

Ripley, Sylvanus, 75

Riverda, H. J., 603

Robb, Mary Margaret, 609

Robinson, Frederick B., 498

Robson, Eleanor (Mrs. August Bel-
mont), 596

Rodigan, Mary, 604

Rolfe, William James, 625

Roosevelt, Theodore, 270, 428

Rose, Laura A., 543

Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 278, 395, 400

Rousselot, L'Abb6, 361-63 passim

Royce, Josiab, 170

Rush, Benjamin: notice on oration, 74;
his career, 220, called America's first
psychiatrist, 220-21; his autobiogra-
phy, 220, 235n2; quoted, 234

Rush, James, 139, 162, 171, 178, 184,
186, 187, 211, 330, 334, 426, 634;
his influence on Barber, 185-86; his
outstanding followers, 187; his influ-
ence on Murdoch, 189; his educa-

INDEX

685

tion, 220; religious indictment of,
221; his research on the mind, 221-
25; his early studies on voice, 225-
26; his Philosophy of the Human
Voice, 226; his contributions to
teaching of speech, 227-30! his treat-
ment of vocal quality, 230-32; au-
thors used by, 236n31

Rush, Mary, 222

Russell, G. O., 361, 363

Russell, William, 147, 148, 179, 180,
184, 193, 294, 330; his career, 187;
on elocution in lower schools, 187-
88; his theory of elocution, 187-89

Sargent, Franklin H., 209, 560, 561,
563-65, 567, 618, 624, 638

Sayre, Stephen, 524

Scheier, M., 363

School of Acting (Boucicault), 620

School of Expression, 198, 626; history
of, 306; principles of, 307-10, 315-
17; aims and methods of, 321-22;
See Curry, S. S.

School of Practical Rhetoric and Ora-
tory, 198

School of Speech (Northwestern Uni-
versity), 198

School of the Theatre ( Lewisohns' ) ,
629

School of the Theatre of the Threshold
Playhouse, 623

Scott, Leon, 357

Scott, William, 115, 179; his Lessons
in Elocution, 283

Scripture, E. W., 354, 358, 362, 363,
364, 412

Secondary schools: general studies in,
1800-1825, 282-84; speaking in, 283;
extra-curricular programs in, 284,
290; expanded, 1825-1855, 284-86;
reading in, 287, 292, 293, 295,; text-
books for, 288, 290, 294, 295

Seigfried, Earl, 647

Seward, William H., 256

Shattuck, Wenona L,, 601

Shay, Frank, 607

Shedd, William, 138, 146; translator of
Theremin, 135; his statement on rhet-
oric, 136

Sheldon, Esther, 327

Sheppard,Jjathan^ 167 _

^leriHanTlTiomasT 107rT08Tll9, 130,
133, 162, 179, 182, 186, 426; his pub-
lications, 115; his Dictionary, 327-28;
as orthoepist, 330-31 '

Sherman, Lucius A., 573

Sherry Richard, 13, 23, 25; his Treatise
of Schemes and Tropes, 19-21, 24;
his influence on Peacham, 22

Shift of opinion ballot, 271-72

Shoemaker, J. W., 181; his career, 303;
his Practical Elocution, 310, his teach-
ing, 310-12; See National School of
Elocution and Oratory

Siddons, John H., 167

Siddons, Sarah, 555

Silvernail, John P., 492

Skinner, Otis, 538

Shck, Clare, 601, 603

Slocum, W. F., 602

Small, William, 68

Smith, Brainard Gardner, 461

Smith, Elmer W., 497

Smith, John (British rhetorician), 52;
his Mysterie of Rhetorique Unvail'd,
22

Smith, John (Dartmouth professor), 530

Smith, Robert: his Harmonics, 225

Smith, William, 528, 530

Southern Association of Dramatic and
Speech Arts, 648-49, passim

Southwick, F. Townsend, 491, 627

Southwick, Henry L., 312, 625

Southwick, Jessie Eldndge, 625

Sparks, Jared: his Life of John Led-
yard, 528

Speaking machines, 352-53

Speech Association of America, 423,
434, 455, 483, 496, 611

Speech associations, 423-24

Speech clinics, 457-58

Speech in public schools: activities re-
lated to, 472-73; high school courses
in, 473-80, 486n28; elementary school
courses in, 480-82; teacher training
for, 466, 482-84

Speech therapy: need for, in secondary
schools, 291; emergence of educa-
tional concept of, 389-95 passim;
physiological philosophy of, 397-99;
effect of compulsory schooling, 400-
01; inhibited by "dualism," 406-07;
influence of psychology on, 409-10;
in the public schools, 411; value of
the survey to, 411-13

Spencer, Thomas, 32

Sprague, Homer B., 451

Spurgeon, Charles Haddon, 146
| Spy Club, 239

Stagefnght, 100

Stanhope- Wheatcroft Dramatic School,
622

686

INDEX

Stanislavsky, Constantin, 637

Stebbins, Genevieve, 627

Steele, Joshua, 120, 130, 162, 179, 186,
187, 330; his Prosodia Rational™, 116

Steele, Richard, 105

Stetson, R. EL, 361; his Motor Phonetics,
362

Stevens, Thomas Wood, 573, 5^4, 598,
628, 630

Stewart, Dugald, 133, 221

Stewart, J. Q., 356

Stiles, Ezra, 61, 62, 64, 65, 71, 72, 523,
527

Stirling, John: his System of Rhetoric,
55; his influence on Knox, 130

Stock companies as schools for actors,
555-56

Stratton, Clarence, 606

String galvanometer, 358

Strobolaryngoscopy, 361

Stump, E. Turner, 609

Stuttering: therapy by the "American
Method," 398; by surgery, 398-99,
416n54; by appliances, 399; by
"drill," 407; See Speech therapy

Style: in Ciceronian pattern of rhetoric,
5-16 passim; in Stylistic pattern, 16-
23 passim; in Ramistic pattern of
rhetoric, 28-33 passim, 49; m Ba-
conian pattern of rhetoric, 33-40
passim; Farnaby on, 52; Port Royal
Art of Speaking on, 53; Ward, Blair,
Campbell, Whately, Priestley on, 94-
97; difference between poetry and
oratory in, 96-97; oral and written,
133-34; Day on, 137; Genung on,
143; inhomiletics, 146-47, See Sty-
listic pattern of rhetoric
Stylistic pattern of rhetoric, 4, 10, 16-

23 passim, 34

Swedenborg, Emanuel, 217nl4, 302
Sweet, Henry, 334
Swift, Jonathan, 67, 106

Talaeus, Audomarus, 31, 40; his Rhet-

orica, 49

Talon, Omer: See Talaeus, Audomarus
Tappan, David N., 145
Tarkington, Booth, 540
Tau Kappa Alpha, 268, 510
Taveraer, Richard: his Garden of Wys-

dom, 24; his Prouerbes or Adagies, 24
Taylor, William, 147
Teaching of speech in college, 502-03
Theatre Arts, 607, 642
Theatre Guild, 624

Theatre history: college courses in, 589-
90

Theatre Library Association, 642

Theon, 25

Theremin, Francis, 138, 140; his Elo-
quence A Virtue, 135-36; Shedd's
Preface to, 135; moral function of
eloquence, 136

Theta Alpha Phi, 644-46

Thomas, Mary A., 600

Thompson, Lewis S., 540

Thorndike, Edward, 586

Thornton, William, 395

Thorpe, Clarence, 596

Tibbetts, Gladys, 606

Tilly, William, 327; his influence,
338-39

Tompkins, Frank, 604

Townsend, L. T.: his Art of Speech,
141

Towse, John Rankin, 555

Trapezuntius, Georgms: his Rhetorico-
rum Libri Quinque, 40

Traversagm, Lorenzo Gughelmo: his
career, 8-9; his Nova Rhetorica, 9

Tropes: Bede on, 16-17; Sherry on, 19-
21, Peacham on, 22; Day and Hos-
kins on, 22-23, Ramus on, 49; Smith
on, 52; Ward on, 94; Emerson on,
140

Trueblood, Thomas, 163, 171, 260, 452,
459, 461, 492, 493, 494, 498, 503,
509; his career, 425-27

Tudor, William, 159

Tuttle, C. H., 361

Twitmeyer, Edwin B., 412

Udall, Nicholas: his Flovres for Latine

Spekynge, 24
University of Pennsylvania: course of

study at, 54; books used at, 59n47

Vandenhoff, George, 180, 554, 618, 634
Vicars, Thomas, 39; his Guide to the

Art of Rhetoric, 15
Victor, Julius: his Ars Rhetorica, 8
Visible speech: BelFs system described,

372-78 passim; reasons for failure of,

382
Voice science: relation to experimental

phonetics, 350

Volta Bureau, 402, 406, 418n77
Vossius, Gerhard Johann, 51
Wadsworth, Benjamin, 73
Wagner, Russell H,, 13

INDEX

687

Walker, John, 108, 115, 120, 130, 162,
179, 180, 182, 186, 187, 283, 286,
426; compared to Sheridan, 116-17,

i his theory o£ elocution, 117; his Ele-

\ merits of Elocution, 181

Wallack, Lester, 618

Wallis, John, 392

Ward, John: his System of Oratory, 54,
80-81, 85

Warde, Frederick, 618

Ware, Henry, 147, 148, 157

Warner, Henry, 532

Warren, William, 557

Washington College- course of study, 54

Washington Square Players, 624

Watts, Isaac, 88, his Improvement of
the Mind, 243

Way, Daisy M., 379

Weaver, Andrew Thomas, 439, 475

Webster, Daniel, 76

Webster, Noah, 3, 281, 327, his Gram-
matical Institute, 57

Weeks, John Burgess, 538

Welles, E. G.: his Orators Guide,
134-35

Wells, W. H , 292

Werner, Edgar S., 211; his Delsarte
System of Oratory, 214-15, his Maga-
zine, 216nl

Wesley, John, 119

West, Robert, 507

Wethlo, F., 360

ately, Richard, 81, 129, 137, 139,
140, 142, 162, 167, 179, his Elements
of Logic and Elements of Rhetoric,
83-85; criticized by Hope, 138^. criti-
Curry, 195

Wheatcroft, Nelson, 566, 568

Wheatstone, Charles: work on vowel
quality, 353, 355

Whipple, Zera: the Whipple Natural
Alphabet, 378-80

Whitney, Charles, 233; Century Dic-
tionary, 335, Oriental and Linguistic
Studies, 335

Wilkins, John: plate on articulatory ap-
paratus, 351

Williams, George C., 495
Willis, Wilfred: the inharmonic theory,

353

Wilson, Bertha Luckan, 609
Wilson, Thomas^ 13, 19, 25, 36, 53, his
Arte of Rhetofique, 13-15 passim 24;
his Rule of Reason, 14, 25
Wilson, Woodrow, 3
Winans, James Albert, 427, 430, 461,
498, 501; his career, 433-36 passim;
his contributions, 434
Wmthrop, John, 53

®hn, 3, 56, 61, 63, 65,
S, 73, 146," 147, 148, 153, 524; his
Lectures on Moral Philosophy and
Eloquence, 59n55; ^opsfetates — prize
contests, 68; lecturer at Princeton,
from classical tradition,
9-30; his Introductory Lectures on
Mvinity, 145; his opposition to stage,

129-;

Woodward, Howard S., 441
Woolbert, Charles Henry, 455, 498,

501, 503, 504, 588, 589; his career,

436-40 passim
Worcester, Alice, 382
Worcester, Joseph, 327
Wotton, Samuel, 32
Wright, James, 119
Written composition, 158, 159
Wythe, George, 64, 65

Yale University: speaking exercises at,
61, 62; Department of Drama, 630
The Yowng Secretary's Guide, 56

Zetagathian Society (Iowa), 242
Zeta Phi Eta, 643
Zimmerman, Jane D., 340

1 32 060

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "History Of Speech Education In America Background Studies"

See other formats